IMPORTANT POINT
Scope of judicial review against a departmental enquiry proceeding is very limited – It is not in nature of an appeal and a review on merits of decision is not permissible – Scope of enquiry is to examine whether decision-making process is legitimate and to ensure that findings are not bereft of any evidence.

JUDGMENT

K.V. Viswanathan, J.

The present appeal by the State Bank of India (for short "the Bank"), calls in question the correctness of the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore dated 20.10.2010 in Writ Appeal No. 8085 of 2003. By the said judgment, the Division Bench had dismissed the Appeal of the Bank and confirmed the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 12.11.2003. The learned Single Judge had allowed the Writ Petition No. 29547 of 1997 filed by the respondent and quashed the order passed by the Appointing Authority and granted consequential benefits to the respondent. The Appointing Authority had, by its order of 31.01.1995, imposed a punishment of "reduction in basic pay to the lowest stage in Scale-I" as envisaged under Rule 49 (e) of the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules and further, has treated the period spent by the delinquent officer under suspension from 18.08.1990 till the date of his reinstatement as suspension only.

2. Being aggrieved, the Bank has filed the present Appeal. Shri Sanjay Kapur, learned counsel for the Bank, contends that the courts below have transgressed the limits of Judicial Review. According to the learned counsel, the courts below have erred in characterizing the orders of the Disciplinary authorities as perverse.

3. On the contrary, the respondent represented by Shri S.N. Bhat, learned Senior Counsel, vehemently defends the orders impugned. Learned Senior Counsel contends that the present was a case of "no evidence" and the enquiry officer without any evidence on record and based only on his personal purported knowledge has recorded the findings of guilt. Learned Senior Counsel further contends that the courts below have rightly set aside the order of the Disciplinary Authorities and that the case did not call for any interference.

Relevant Facts

4. The facts, insofar as they are necessary for the adjudication of this Appeal, are set out hereinbelow:

a) Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondent for certain acts of misconduct allegedly committed by him when he was working as Field Officer of the Mahadevapura Branch of the Bank. Broadly stated, the charges in the Charge Sheet dated 13.02.1992 were:

i) That he recommended and obtained sanction from the Branch Manager, credit limits to various units as detailed therein and permitted excess drawings on an on-going basis; that he did not report to the controlling office the excess drawings permitted; that he did not conduct periodical inspections as per the extant instructions; that loan sanctions were given and credit limit extended to entities operating in the premises of another entity;

ii) That credit limit was recommended and sanction obtained for M/s Saraswathi Fabricators even though the unit was located away from the area of operation; sanction of the advance was not reported to the Controlling Office; and formalities for creating equitable mortgage over immovable property offered as collateral security were not completed;

iii) That the respondent recommended and obtained sanction of advance to M/s ACE Photo Reprographers and M/s Sangeetha Refreshments both from Shivajinagar, even though the units were non-existent and the particulars furnished were fictitious as another firm M/s All Arts Company was operating from the same premises; that the sanction of these advances were not reported to the controlling office and periodical inspection of the units were not conducted.

iv) That the respondent had recommended and obtained sanction on 20.05.1987 cash credit limit to M/s. Rajeswari Enterprises and the respondent did not submit control return; that periodical inspections were not carried out and formalities for creation of equitable mortgage over immovable property stipulated as pre-condition for sanction of limit were not completed. Certain other charges set out, which are not directly relevant for the adjudication of the Appeal, have not been highlighted