Advocates:
SANJAY KAPURKRISHAN SINGH CHAUHAN

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 13

CASE NO.:

Appeal (civil) 4243-4244 of 2004

PETITIONER:

State Bank of India & Ors

RESPONDENT:

S.N. Goyal

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/05/2008

BENCH:

H. K. Sema & R. V. Raveendran

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4243-4244 OF 2004

R.V. RAVEENDRAN, J.

Theses appeals by special leave are filed by a defendant-employer

(State Bank of India) against the judgment dated 11.12.2003 of the Punjab &

Haryana High Court in R.S.A. No.4184 of 2002.

2. A charge-sheet dated 28.4.1994 was issued by the Appellant Bank to

the respondent alleging that when he was posted as the Branch Manager of

appellant’s Kalanwali Branch, Sirsa, Haryana, he had received cash

payments tendered by two customers of the Bank, for being credited to their

loan accounts, and temporarily misappropriated such amounts and had

belatedly deposited them to the borrowers’ accounts (after about five months

in one case and two and half months in another). The said acts amounted to a

misconduct, violative of Rule 50(4) of the State Bank of India Officers

Service Rules (’Service Rules’ for short). An enquiry was held in regard to

the said charge. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 11.11.1994

holding that the charge was proved. The Disciplinary Authority furnished a

copy of the said report to the respondent and gave him an opportunity to

show cause in the matter.

3. Rule 68(3) of the Service Rules required, where the Disciplinary

Authority was of the opinion that a major penalty is to be imposed, and

where he was lower in rank to the Appointing Authority (in respect of the

category of officers to which the delinquent officer belonged), that he should

submit to the Appointing Authority, the records of the enquiry together with

his recommendations regarding the penalty that may be imposed, and the

Appointing Authority should make the order imposing the penalty, which in

his opinion was appropriate. In view of the above rule, the Disciplinary

Authority after considering the inquiry records and the representation of the

respondent, made a recommendation on 2.5.1995 to the Appointing

Authority to impose the penalty of ’removal from service’ on the

respondent. The Appointing Authority considered the entire material and

concurred with the recommendation of the Disciplinary Authority and made

an order dated 3.5.1995 imposing the penalty of removal from service,

which was communicated to the Respondent by letter dated 30.6.1995 of the

Disciplinary Authority.

4. The appeal and Revision (Review) filed by the Respondent were

dismissed on 29.11.1995 and 27.11.1996. The respondent thereafter filed

Civil Suit No.158 of 1998 on the file of the Civil Judge, Senior Division,

Jind, for a declaration that the order of removal dated 30.6.1995 as also the

orders of the Appellate Authority and Reviewing Authority were arbitrary

and illegal. He also prayed that the said orders be set aside with a direction

to take him back into service with all consequential benefits. The suit was

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 13

resisted by the appellant-bank. After trial, the suit was decreed on

19.4.2003. The Trial Court found that there was no violation of principles of

natural justice in conducting the enquiry and the order holding the

respondent guilty of misconduct was proper. The trial court however found

that the Disciplinary Authority, by his earlier note dated 18.1.1995, had

recommended imposition of the penalty of reduction of pay of respondent by

four stages in his time scale and the Appointing Authority had agreed with

the said recommendation on 18.1.1995. According to the trail court, the said

order was a final order of punishment by the Appointing Authority; and the

Appointing Authority had thereafter sought the advice of the Bank’s Chief

Vigilance Officer, and acting on such advice, had changed his earlier

decision and imposed a