M.S. Gupta vs State Bank Of India And Others
2009 Latest Caselaw 2794 Del

*                HIGH COURT OF DELHI : NEW DELHI

               Judgment reserved on: 17 July, 2009

               Judgment pronounced on: 23 July, 2009

+                     W.P. (C ) No.   13388 of 2005

%       M.S. Gupta                   .... Petitioner
                 Through: Mr. L. K. Garg, Advocate
                         versus

        State Bank of India and Others
                                           ....Respondents
                       Through: Mr. Rajiv Kapur, Advocate

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

1.    Whether the Reporters of local
papers may be allowed to see
the judgment?

2.      To be referred to Reporter or not?

3.   Whether the judgment should be
reported in the Digest?

SUNIL GAUR, J.

(1) Petitioner - M.S. Gupta was the Branch Manager of

State Bank of India in Uttar Pradesh (herein after

referred to as the 'respondent Bank') from June, 1995

to November, 1998. Vide Annexure P-1, disciplinary

proceedings were initiated against the petitioner in

October, 2001 regarding false TA bills and other

W.P.(C ) No. 13388 of 2005 Page 1 irregularities. The petitioner had submitted his

explanation, Annexure P-2. Statement of imputation of

misconduct in respect of Articles of Charges, Annexure

P-3, was served upon the petitioner and the inquiry

proceedings commenced. Vide Inquiry Report,

Annexure P-6, charge Nos. 1 to 4, for claiming fictitious

travelling expenses during the period from June, 1995

till November, 1998, stood proved against the

petitioner, whereas charge No. 5-A to 5-C stood partly

proved against the petitioner regarding taxi bills

claimed by the petitioner during the year 1998. The

Appointing Authority, vide Order of 28th June, 2003, had

imposed the penalty of "removal from service" upon

the petitioner in terms of Rules 67(i) of State Bank of

India, Officer's Service Rules.

(2) Statutory appeal against the aforesaid order of

"removal from service" was preferred by the petitioner

but the petitioner could not succeed in appeal and vide

order of 5th March, 2004, his appeal was dismissed by

the Appellate Authority. The aforesaid order of the

Appellate Authority was challenged by the petitioner by

filing a writ petition in the High Court of Allahabad,

which was dismissed vide order Annexure P-9. Against

W.P.(C ) No. 13388 of 2005 Page 2 the order of dismissal of the writ, the petitioner had

preferred Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court

which was dismissed vide order, Annexure-10.

(3) Now what is impugned in the present writ petition

is Order, Annexure P-12, vide which petitioner's review

petition has been dismissed by the Review Committee

of the respondents. Quashing of the order, Annexure P-

12, dismissing the review petition is assailed in this

petition on the ground that the order of the Appellate

Authority of 5th March, 2004, was sought to be reviewed

on 5th June, 2004, by filing a review petition, Annexure

P-11, and the same was dismissed vide impugned

order, Annexure-12, on 25th January, 2005. According to

the petitioner, the penalty imposed is inequitable and

disproportionate as the alleged pecuniary loss to the

respondent Bank is negligible. Regarding the territorial

jurisdiction, it is stated by the petitioner that the

decision to initiate the departmental proceedings

against the petitioner was taken at Delhi, the

departmental proceedings took place at Delhi,

punishment of "removal from service" was also

imposed at Delhi and the Appellate Authority had also

dismissed petitioner's appeal at Delhi.

W.P.(C ) No. 13388 of 2005                                              Page 3
 (4)     Respondents in the counter affidavit have taken

preliminary           objection        regarding      the      territorial

jurisdiction as well as about the present petition being

barred by res judicata. On merits, the imposition of

penalty of "removal from service" is sought to be

justified by asserting that adequacy of evidence is not

required to be gone into in the review proceedings.

According to the respondents, Review Committee after

perusing the record, has passed the impugned order

which is well reasoned and the impugned order does

not suffer from any infirmity.

(5) Counsel for the parties have been heard and with

their assistance, record of this case has been perused.

(6) Learned counsel for the petitioner confines his

challenge in this petition to the penalty imposed and

submits that the penalty of "removal from service"

imposed upon the petitioner is quite disproportionate. It

is pointed out that the loss caused to the respondents

in matter of claiming the TA bills was just Rupees eight

hundred only and the petitioner has already put in

twenty nine years of service and, therefore, instead of

major penalty, a minor penalty ought to have been

imposed upon the petitioner. On behalf of the W.P.(C ) No. 13388 of 2005 Page 4 petitioner, reliance has been placed upon the decisions

reported in JT 2004 (Supl. 1) SC 475; JT 1995 (5) SC

474; JT 2000 (9) SC 110 and JT 2001 (5) SC 338 to

contend that even after the dismissal of the Special

Leave Petition of the petitioner in limine by the Apex

Court, still review of the decision of the High Court was

maintainable as the doctrine of merger did not apply.

As regards the territorial jurisdiction is concerned, it has

been urged on behalf of the petitioner that since part of

cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of this

court, therefore, this petition is maintainable.

(7) Learned counsel for the respondents assert that

the review petition itself is rendered infructuous after

dismissal of Special Leave Petition by the Apex Court

and infact the impugned order passed by the Reviewing

Authority is reasoned one. Reliance has been placed

upon decisions reported in 1992 Suppl. 2 SCC 312;

(2003) 4 SCC 376 and 1995 (5) SCC 762 to contend

that judicial review cannot be extended to examine the

correctness or reasonableness of the decision and the

decision of the Appellate/ Review Authority cannot be

substituted by the court and the judicial review is

limited to see if there was any deficiency in the

W.P.(C ) No. 13388 of 2005 Page 5 decision making process and the departmental

proceedings are not to be interfered with except in case

of being malafide or perverse.

(8) Reliance has also been placed upon the decisions

reported in 2008 (1) SCC 115; (2006) 7 SCC 212 and

(2005) 1 SCC 13 by the respondents to contend that

that punishment of "removal/ dismissal from service" is

an appropriate punishment for an employee who is

found guilty of misappropriation of funds and the

financial loss actually occurred, cannot be a yard stick

to judge the misconduct of the bank employee.

(9) I am of the considered view that since the

impugned order, Annexure P-12, has been passed by

respondent No.2, who is stationed at Delhi, therefore, it

was open to the petitioner to challenge the same before

this Court in the present proceedings. However, I find

that the limited challenge made in this petition to the

proportionality of the punishment imposed on the

petitioner has been already considered by the High

Court of Allahabad in its order, Annexure P-9, in the

following words:-

"In view of the above, as the Department has taken a very lenient view imposing W.P.(C ) No. 13388 of 2005 Page 6 punishment of removal only, we see no cogent reason to interfere in the matter. Petition is accordingly dismissed."

(10) This very aspect of proportionality of punishment

has been also been dealt with, by the Reviewing

Authority in the impugned order, Annexure P-12, in the

following words:-

"The Committee on an independent application of mind is of the view that the penalty imposed on Shri Gupta is commensurate to the grave nature of lapses. The review petition is rejected as without merit. The Committee orders accordingly.

(11) Rule 24(12) of State Bank of India, Officer's

Service Rules, reads as under:-

"An officer making a false claim or

furnishing any false information shall be

guilty of misconduct and shall render himself

liable to disciplinary action and consequent

punishment including dismissal."

(12) This Court is of the considered view that there

should be no interference with the administrative

decisions unless they are shown to be illogical or said to

W.P.(C ) No. 13388 of 2005 Page 7 be suffering from procedural impropriety or it shocks

the conscious of the court in the sense that they defeat

logic. A Bank Manager, like the petitioner, is required to

adopt high standards of integrity. Petitioner has failed

to point out any perversity in the impugned order of the

Reviewing Authority. Instead of dismissal, the order of

"removal from service" has been imposed upon the

petitioner, which permits the petitioner to draw the

pension, as claimed by petitioner's counsel. The

punishment imposed upon the petitioner cannot be said

to be disproportionate to the misconduct committed by

the petitioner.

(13) In view of the aforesaid, I am of the considered

view that the impugned order does not suffer from any

arbitrariness or irregularity. This petition lacks

substance and is hereby dismissed.

(14) No costs.

(15) With the aforesaid, this petition and pending

application, if any, stands disposed of.

Sunil Gaur, J.

July 23, 2009
rs




W.P.(C ) No. 13388 of 2005                                     Page 8