IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI APARESH KUMAR SINGH AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.M.MOHIUDDIN WRIT APPEAL No.380 of 2025 DATE: 11.02.2026 BETWEEN:

State Bank of India and 4 others.

….Appellants AND Batta Satyanarayana ….Respondent

JUDGMENT

This Intra-Court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order dated 31.12.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.16223 of 2020. By the said order, the learned Single Judge set aside (i) the order of dismissal dated 08.12.2015, (ii) the appellate order dated 26.05.2017, and (iii) the review order dated 15.12.2018, passed against the writ petitioner–employee. Further, the learned Single Judge directed reinstatement of the writ petitioner notwithstanding his superannuation during the pendency of the writ petition, permitted the Bank to re-initiate disciplinary proceedings only in respect of Charge XIX and directed release of gratuity and other consequential benefits. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants–Bank have preferred the present appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience and clarity, the parties shall be referred to as they were arrayed before the learned Single Judge, namely, the State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Bank’) and Batta Satyanarayana (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Writ Petitioner).

3. Heard Sri B.S.Prasad, learned Senior Counsel representing M/s.Pearl Associates for the appellants and Sri Dr.A.Raghu Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and perused the record.

Factual background (in brief)

4. The writ petitioner joined the services of the Bank in the year 1977 and, over a career spanning more than thirty-six years, rose to the position of Assistant General Manager (Scale-V). During the relevant period, he was posted as Regional Manager, Regional Business Office (RBO), Kurnool, where he functioned between 2007 and 2010, and was entrusted with administrative, supervisory, and credit-sanctioning responsibilities over branches falling within the said region.

5. On 07.04.2014, the Bank issued a charge memorandum vide Letter No.VIG/SGN/28 framing eighteen (18) charges/allegations against the writ petitioner. The charges, in substance, alleged:

i. financial irregularities in the incurring and control of expenditure towards travelling allowance, stationery, printing, and advertisements (Charges I to IV);

ii. sanction of credit facilities in violation of the Bank’s credit policy, including exceeding discretionary powers, extending undue favour to certain borrower groups, particularly one R.V.Ramana, K Ramanacharlu and the promotors of VC Heavens, and sanctioning proposals falling within the competence of higher sanctioning committees without due referral (Charges V to XVII); and iii. failure to exercise effective control and supervision over the advances portfolio, allegedly resulting in a ‘likely loss’ of Rs.5789.55 lakhs to the Bank (Charge XVIII).

6. While the enquiry pursuant to the charge memorandum was in progress, the Bank issued a supplementary charge sheet dated 22.09.2014, followed by a corrigendum dated 16.10.2014, introducing Charge XIX. Under this charge, it was alleged that the writ petitioner had sanctioned credit facilities to one K. Ramprasad and his family members and concerns, and that from the accounts of the said borrower, foreign remittances were transmitted to the bank accounts of the writ petitioner’s sons residing in Canada, thereby constituting pecuniary gain and engaging in prohibited financial dealings with a borrower of the Bank.

7. A regular departmental enquiry was thereafter conducted in accordance with the applicable service regulations. Upon completion of the enquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted a report dated

07.05.2015, recording the following findings:

i. Charges I to XIV, XVII and XVIII: Not proved;

ii. Charges XV and XVI: Partly proved; and iii. Charge XIX: Proved.

8. The Disciplinary Authority, namely the General Manager (NW-III), di