Gujarat High Court
State Bank Of India vs M. B. Parmar on 28 July, 2025
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/3592/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY) NO. 3592 of
2025
In
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 893 of 2025
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 892 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 23770 of 2006
With
R/CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3939 of 2025
In
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 892 of 2025
With
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 893 of 2025
In
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 24268 of 2006
==========================================================
STATE BANK OF INDIA & ANR.
Versus
M. B. PARMAR
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR. PARITOSH GUPTA, ADVOCATE WITH MR.PRABHDEEP
KAUR,ADVOCATE FOR LAW ASSOCIATES(9818) for the Applicant(s) No.
1,2
MR G.M.JOSHI, SR.COUNSEL WITH AK CLERK(235) for the Respondent(s)
No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MRS. JUSTICE
SUNITA AGARWAL
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY
Date : 28/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.N.RAY)
ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3939 OF 2025:-
No plausible objection has been taken to the delay of 44
days in filing the instant appeal. The delay has been explained
to the satisfaction of the Court. The delay condonation
application is allowed. The delay in filing the present appeal is
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/3592/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/07/2025
undefined
hereby condoned. The office shall allot the regular number to
the appeal.
ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3592 OF 2025:-
No plausible objection has been taken to the delay of 57
days in filing the instant appeal. The delay has been explained
to the satisfaction of the Court. The delay condonation
application is allowed. The delay in filing the present appeal is
hereby condoned. The office shall allot the regular number to
the appeal.
COMMON ORDER IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL
NOS.892 OF 2025 & 893 OF 2025.
1. Heard Mr. Paritosh Gupta, learned advocate with Mr.
Prabhdeep Kaur, learned advocate for Gupta Law Associates
for the Appellant and Mr. G. M. Joshi, learned senior advocate
with Mr. A. K. Clerk, learned advocate for the Respondents.
2. In view of two concurrent proceedings, two separate
appeals have been preferred as a consequence thereof.
Letters Patent Appeal No. 892 of 2025 and Letters Patent
Appeal (LPA) No. 893 of 2025 have been preferred by and
against the same parties, and were heard conjointly, in view of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/3592/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/07/2025
undefined
the commonality of parties and issues involved. LPA No. 892
of 2025 assails the order dated 29.01.2025, whereas LPA No.
893 of 2025 calls into question the order dated 23.01.2025;
both orders having been passed by the learned Single Judge of
this Court. The former pertains to the issues of reinstatement
and forfeiture of gratuity, whereas the latter concerns the
reduction in pay scale of the respondent herein.
3. For the sake of convenience, LPA No. 892 of 2025 is
treated as the lead matter, and this judgment shall dispose of
both the aforesaid appeals. Brief facts of the LPA No. 892 of
2025 are as under:
3.1 The present intra-court appeal, in nuce, arises out of
disciplinary proceedings initiated against the Respondent
(original Petitioner), who was initially appointed as a Cashier-
cum-Clerk in the Appellant Bank on 17.01.1979, and was
subsequently promoted to the post of Senior Assistant in the
clerical cadre.
3.2 During his posting at the Bhaktinagar Branch, Rajkot,
the Respondent/Original Petitioner was alleged to have
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/3592/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/07/2025
undefined
committed multiple acts amounting to gross misconduct. It is
the case of the Appellant, that on 13.01.2004, the Respondent
behaved in an unusual manner and allegedly assaulted the
Branch Manager. Consequently, the Respondent was placed
under suspension vide order dated 19.01.2004.
3.3 Subsequent inquiry revealed that the Respondent was
operating a bank account in the name of "M/s Akshar
Realities" with Dena Bank, a proprietary concern in which his
son was a partner, without obtaining prior permission from
the competent authority. Further, an educational loan to the
tune of ₹11.55 lakhs had been sanctioned by the Bhaktinagar
Branch of the Appellant bank in favour of Shri Manish M.
Parmar, son of the Respondent and a partner in the said
concern, on 04.09.2002. It was also observed that the
Respondent's monthly financial commitments in respect of
loan premiums and instalments constituted nearly 50% of his
gross salary. Additionally, he had availed a housing loan from
M/s Gruh Finance without requisite approval, which fact was
admitted by him vide communication dated 18.08.2004.
3.4 It was further alleged that the Respondent, while
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/3592/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/07/2025
undefined
claiming Leave Fare Concession (LFC) for the month of
January 2003, submitted a travel bill dated 25.01.2003 issued
by "Ritz Travel" for an amount of ₹11,875/-, appended to his
bill dated 18.06.2003. However, upon verification, the
registration number of the vehicle mentioned in the travel bill
was found to be fictitious and non-existent at the relevant
time.
3.5 In view of the above allegations, a charge-sheet bearing
Letter No. AGM/III/AGMS/133 dated 04.06.2004 was issued to
the Respondent. The Respondent submitted his written
explanation in response thereto vide letter dated 19.06.2004.
Thereafter, a departmental inquiry was conducted in
accordance with the established service rules and procedure.
The Inquiry Officer submitted a report dated 22.02.2005,
holding that the charges levelled against the Respondent
stood proved, which reads thus :-
"I, therefore, conclude that all the four allegations viz.
I) CSE did not performed the allotted duties on
13.01.2004, shouted in the banking hall, hurled
obscenities at the Branch Manager and also repeatedly
assaulted the Branch Manager with the mobile phone in
the later's cabin. This is Gross Misconduct covered
under Para 5 (e), (g) of Annexure II attached to the
Circular No. Cir:DO:102:2002-2003 dated 18.12.2002
issued by Ahmedabad LHO
II) CSE have engaged himself in the commercial
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/3592/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/07/2025
undefined
activities/business under the name and style of M/s
Akshar Realities which is outside the scope of his duties
and without the written permission from the competent
authority of the Bank. This is violation of 'Rules of
Conduct mentioned on page 104 para I (a) (viii) in
Reference Book on Staff Matters - Award Staff-Volume
II
III) CSE have also indulged in outside borrowings
from M/s. Gruh Finance Ltd., The Rajkot Bank Workers
Co-Op. Credit Society Ltd and have also borrowed large
sums from the private individuals. This is violation of
'Rules of Conduct' mentioned on page 104 para I (a)(i)
in the Reference Book on Staff Matters-Award Staff -
Volume II.
IV) CSE did not travel in the vehicle whose
Registration Number has been mentioned in the
invoice/bill of the Travel Agency -Ritz Travels and
thereby claimed the amount on fictitious LFC bill. This
is Gross Misconduct covered under para 5(j) of
Annexure II attached to the Circular No.
Cir:DO:102:2002-2003 dated 18.12.2002 issued by
Ahmedabad LHO
are proved and therefore, the charges leveled against
the Charge sheeted Employee are established."
A copy of the Inquiry Report was furnished to the
Respondent by the Appellant Bank, calling for his further
representation. The Respondent submitted his response
thereto vide letter dated 14.03.2005.
3.6 Subsequently, a show cause notice was issued to the
Respondent by the Disciplinary Authority. The Respondent
submitted his replies dated 02.06.2005 and 16.06.2005. Upon
consideration of the Respondent's submissions and the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/3592/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/07/2025
undefined
findings of the Inquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority, vide
order dated 02.08.2005, imposed the penalty of dismissal
from service without notice, along with forfeiture of the entire
amount of gratuity payable to the Respondent.
3.7 The Respondent, being aggrieved, preferred a
departmental appeal before the Appellate Authority, assailing
the order of dismissal and forfeiture of gratuity. The said
appeal was dismissed vide order dated 15.07.2006.
3.8 Challenging the order dated 15.07.2006, the Respondent
approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India by filing the Special Civil Application, SCA No. 23770 of
2006, inter alia, seeking reinstatement in service and
quashing of the dismissal order dated 02.08.2005. The
Learned Single Judge, vide oral judgment dated 29.01.2025,
allowed the writ petition and consequently, quashed and set
aside the impugned dismissal order dated 02.08.2005, and
directed consequential benefits in favour of the Respondent.
4. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment dated 29.01.2025,
rendered by the Learned Single Judge, the Appellant Bank has
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/3592/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/07/2025
undefined
preferred the present appeal with the following prayers:
"A. This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass appropriate
order in exercise of the appellate powers quashing and
setting aside the impugned order passed by the learned
Single Judge on 29.01.2025.
B. That this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to uphold the
orders dated 02.08.2005 and 15.07.2006.
C. To pass such further Order as may be deemed fit in the
interest of justice."
5. Mr. Paritosh Gupta, learned advocate with Mr. Prabhdeep
Kaur appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the
learned Single Judge has committed a grave error in law in
interfering with the concurrent findings of the Disciplinary
Authority as well as the Appellate Authority and substituting its
view with those of the Disciplinary Authority. It was pleaded that
the learned Single Judge under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India was not justified in interfering with the order of dismissal
which was a result of full fledged inquiry especially where the
charges were extremely grave and the respondent being an
employee of the Bank was expected to maintain the highest
standard of financial transperancy as expected in the very nature of
his service. Mr. Gupta relied upon the following decisions in
support of his submissions :-
UP State Bridge Corp. Ltd. & Ors. v. UP Rajyasetu
Nigam S Karmchari Sangh, reported in (2004) 4 SCC
268;
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/3592/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/07/2025
undefined
A.P. Foods v. S. Samuel & Ors., reported in (2006) 5 SCC
469;
Bongaigon Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd. & Ors. v.
Girish Chandra Sarma, reported in (2007) 7 SCC 206;
Transport & Dock Workers' Union & Ors. v. Mumbai
Port Trust & Anr., reported in (2011) 2 SCC 575;
State Bank of India & Ors. v. Narendra Kumar Pandey,
reported in (2013) 2 SCC 740;
Union of India & Ors. v. Subrata Nath, reported in 2022
SCC OnLine SC 1617.
6. Upon going through the judgment and order dated
29.01.2025, we find that the learned Single Judge has
painstakingly examined each and every issue before the Court
and has arrived at the following findings:-
"12.1 Charge No.1: "Willful insubordination or disobedience
of any lawful and reasonable order of the management or of a
superior"... "Drunkenness or riotous or disorderly or indecent
behaviour on the premises of the bank".
1. The petitioner submitted 7 defense exhibits, DE-1 to
DE-6 and DE-14. DE-5 is a letter dated 06.03.2004
signed by most of the staff members to the AGM
complaining about the rude and adamant behaviour of
the Manager, Shri Tilakraj. DE-1 to DE-4 were
statements/letters of the persons retracting their
statement recorded in the preliminary inquiry.
2. The Presenting Officer referring to ME-5, ME-6, ME-
7, ME-8, ME-9, ME-13, ME-14 and ME-17 stated that
there was hot discussion between the CSE and the
Branch Manager, which is although true but the CSE
uttered filthy abuses is untrue and far away from the
material facts. Every Management Exhibit quoted
hereinabove does not prove that a physical assault on
the Branch Manager was done by the CSE. All the
witnesses are based on presumption for the happenings
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/3592/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/07/2025
undefined
in the Branch Manager's cabin, no one out of the
witnesses is sure as to what happened in the Branch
Manager's cabin. So there Is no concrete evidence
regarding physical assault on the Branch Manager by
the CSE and so, the charges levelled against the CSE
for physical assault on the Branch Manager should be
set aside,
3. The DR has also pointed out that the petitioner has
permanent bilateral hearing impairment and is
receiving disability allowance of Rs.200/- per month,
duly attached with a certificate.
4. a Report of preliminary investigation where the
statements of staff were recorded in questionnaire form
was not supplied to the petitioner.
5. No witnesses were examined by the bank in the
inquiry.
6. The Manager has chosen not to file any complaint.
Further, even though the Manager was one of the most
important witness, was not examined in the inquiry. In
absence of the aforesaid, the charge levelled against
the petitioner cannot be said to be proved.
6.1 It is apposite to refer to the ratio laid down in case of
Hardwari Lal vs. State of U.P. & Ors., reported in 1999
AIR SCW 4387, It is apposite to refer to the relevant
paragraph of the said decision, which reads thus:
5. In the circumstances, we are satisfied that there was
no proper enquiry held by the authorities and on this
short ground we quash the order of dismissal passed
against the appellant by setting aside the order made
by the High Court affirming the order of the Tribunal
and direct that the appellant be reinstated in service.
Considering the fact of long lapse of time before the
date of dismissal and reinstatement, and no blame can
be put only on the door of the respondents, we think it
appropriate to award 50 per cent of the back salary
being payable to the appellant. We thus allow the
appeal filed by the appellant. However, there shall be
no order as to costs."
7. The petitioner was not given any memo for the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/3592/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/07/2025
undefined
alleged non-performance of work on 13.01.2004. The
letter dated 27.11.2004 by Mr. H.D. Valand was
subsequent after a period of 10 months which was not
addressed to anyone.
12.2 Charge No.2: "Engaging in any trade or business
outside the scope of his duties except with the written
permission of the Bank".
1. The petitioner herein has explained each and every
entry in his account by a statement which was
submitted as DE-7 in the inquiry proceedings.
2. The petitioner explained that the petitioner's son had
applied for VISA for UK twice, in 2002 and 2003-04. In
2002, for post graduate study and in 2003-04 for Ph.D.
The petitioner had to show the financial stability in his
account for which, amounts were borrowed from staff
credit society with the consent of the bank, by
surrendering LIC Policy, sale of gold ornaments, sale of
shares and by liquidating FDs of the bank. Some
amounts were also given by the blood relatives. Except
the aforesaid period, there were no high value
transactions in the petitioner's account.
3. The bank Issued 6 certificates for maintaining.
saving account, OD account and loan account
satisfactorily which were produced as DE-7, DE-8, DE-
9, DE-10, DE-11 and DE-12.
4. Akshar Reality is a partnership firm where the
petitioner's son and brother both are partners. The
petitioner produced a partnership deed, copy of
registration certificate of the firm and the bank
certificate from Dena Bank in the departmental inquiry.
5. From the aforesaid, it emerges that the petitioner is
not in any way involved in the said firm. In view
thereof, there was no question of engaging in any trade
or business outside the scope of duties for which, any
permission was to be taken from the respondent - bank.
12.3 Charge No.3: "Borrow money or permit any member of
his family to borrow money or otherwise place himself or a
member of his family under a pecuniary obligation to a
broker or a moneylender or a subordinate employee of the
Bank or any person, association of persons, firm, company or
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/3592/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/07/2025
undefined
institution, whether incorporated or not having dealings with
the bank",
1. The petitioner was a joint applicant having taken
home loan from M/s. Gruh Finance. The petitioner paid
one installment of the loan amount which was given by
the petitioner's son to him to deposit in M/s. Gruh
Finance. The petitioner had borrowed from the Staff
Credit Society with the consent of the bank and the
petitioner paid installments to the credit society by
deducting it from the petitioner's salary.
2. The aforesaid emerges from the EO's findings at
page 34 wherein, it is observed that from ME-21, a sum
of Rs.2860/- is being remitted to Rajkot Bank Workers
Co. Op. Credit Society Ltd. every month from the
Current Account No.01090095159, ME-35 is copy of
cheque for Rs.20,985/- dated 20.02.2002 favouring
Gruh Finance Ltd. issued by the petitioner towards the
installments for January to March, 2002.
3. The defense has advised on 15.12.2004 in the inquiry
proceedings that the money borrowed from M/s. Gruh
Finance Ltd. was for housing purpose by the family of
the petitioner where the petitioner is a joint applicant.
12.4 Charge No.4 "Doing any act prejudicial to the interest
of the bank or gross negligence or negligence involving or
likely to involve the bank in serious loss"
1. Shri Prakash Vyas, the owner of Ritz Travels, was
examined in the inquiry proceedings wherein, Mr. Vyas
has stated as under:
"Sir, I am the owner of Ritz Travels and doing the
business for last three/four years. 2) No, I do not
own any vehicle for Ritz Travels. My business is
purely on commission basis. 3) Yes. The tax for
RTO have been paid but due to lapse of time. I am
not in a position to submit any documents/
evidences. 4) As the stop/stay was short and at
the place of relatives as also on the way so the
documentary evidences are not required. 5) No, I
have not supplied any time the vehicles under
'Ritz Travels, but I have supplied the vehicles to
Bank Staff in the name of Durga Travels and also
Vyas Travels. 6) As the office was rented one and
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/3592/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/07/2025
undefined
the business is based on the relatives of friends
and family members the need of telephone
connection was not felt. 7) As number of vehicles
is being engaged for the commission basis the
mistake had occurred through oversight. But the
correct number of vehicle supplied to Shri
Mahesh B. Parmar is his GJ-3U 238 for that I have
already submitted two written statements. 8) Yes,
I am in possession to submit photocopies of
bills/receipts when the next hearing takes place."
2. It emerges that the owner of Ritz Travels, Shri
Prakash Vyas, was examined wherein, in the inquiry
proceedings had stated that as the number of vehicles
are engaged for the commission basis, the mistake was
committed due to oversight. The correct number of the
vehicle was supplied to the delinquent is GJ-3U-238 for
which, two written statements were already submitted
and was in possession of the photocopies of
bills/receipts.
3. In the opinion of this Court, it is not in dispute that
Shri Prakash Vyas, the owner of the Ritz Travels, had
supplied the vehicle to the petitioner herein. The
Inquiry Officer was examined the charges levelled
against the petitioner with respect to fake bill No.537
produced by the petitioner herein. The same was
answered by the owner of the Ritz Travels. While
holding the charges proved against the petitioner, in
the opinion of this Court, the Inquiry Officer has
traveled beyond the charge and questioned that
whether such Ritz Travels exists or not.
4. The appellate authority has held that the petitioner is
charged for not having undertaken the journey by
vehicle by which, he claimed to have undertaken the
journey. The aforesaid finding, in the opinion of this
Court, is contrary to the record."
7. From a scrutiny of the above, we are of the opinion that
the learned Single Judge had rightly concluded that the
charges framed against the respondent could not be said to
have been proved in view of the total lack of evidence against
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/3592/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/07/2025
undefined
the respondent. Therefore, in our view, the Disciplinary
Authorities have merely arrived at their respective
conclusions without either there being any witnesses
supporting the charge or taking into account material which
were utterly extraneous. Either way, the findings of the
Disciplinary Authorities (including the Appellate Authority)
were perverse and no reasonable person/authority could have
reached the conclusions based on the material available
before him/it.
8. Thus, the learned Single Judge has not substituted the
opinion of the Disciplinary Authority with another opinion,
namely that of the Court but has quashed the findings of the
Disciplinary Authorities as being pervere and not being
capable of being held even as a probable opinion. In such view
of the matter, the decisions cited by Mr.Gupta on behalf of the
appellant do not apply to the facts of the present case.
9. Likewise, in Letters Patent Appeal No. 893 of 2025 in
the impugned judgment dated 23.01.2025, the learned Single
Judge held that, the charge-sheet in the said case was issued
after lapse of four years and there was nothing on record to
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/CA/3592/2025 ORDER DATED: 28/07/2025
undefined
show that there was any loss suffered by any customer.
Finally, the learned Single Judge concluded by holding that
the Disciplinary Authorities below had reached its conclusions
based in the "absence of any cogent material on record".
10. It is also noticed by us that for reasons best known, the
appellant-Bank had initiated a slew of inquiries against the
respondent, suddenly raking up old and stale issues and it
appears to us that the entire effort of the Disciplinary
Proceedings was to somehow ensure the dismissal of the
respondent and if that failed for some reason, to atleast
punish the respondent by reducing his pay etc. In such
circumstances also, we are of the opinion that the learned
Single Judge was perfectly justified in exercising the extra-
ordinary jurisdiction to set at naught the dubious witch-hunt
initiated by the bank against the respondent for reasons best
known to them. In the circumstances as aforesaid, both the
appeals stand dismissed with no order as to costs.
(SUNITA AGARWAL, CJ )
(D.N.RAY,J)
BINA SHAH
