Kerala High Court
Raman Damodaran Namboodiri vs The Chair Man State Bank Of India on 21 May, 2024
Author: Sathish Ninan
Bench: Sathish Ninan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF MAY 2024 / 31ST VAISAKHA, 1946
WP(C) NO. 16420 OF 2013
PETITIONER:
RAMAN DAMODARAN NAMBOODIRI,
S/O.DAMODARAN NAMBOODIRI, AGED 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT
NANDANAM, PERAMANGALAM, KAIPPARAMBA, THRISSUR DISTRICT,
[MANAGER PATTAMBI BRANCH, KERALA CIRCLE (OFFICER MMGS
II) REMOVED FROM SERVICE]
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.VATHSALAN
SRI.GHOSH YOHANNAN
SRI.K.RAKESH ROSHAN
SMT.THUSHARA.V
RESPONDENTS:
1 THE CHAIRMAN,
STATE BANK OF INDIA (CORPORATE CENTRE), STATE BANK
BHAVAN, MADAMECAMA ROAD, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400021.
2 MANAGING DIRECTOR,
(GE) [A & S], CORPORATE OFFICE, STATE BANK OF INDIA,
CUFFE PARADE, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-400021
(REPRESENTING REVIEW COMMITTEE)
3 CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER,
HUMAN RESOURCES, STATE BANK OF INDIA, APPEAL AND REVIEW
DEPARTMENT, CORPORATE CENTRE, POST BOX NO.12, MUMBAI-
400021.(THE MEMBER REVIEW COMMITTEE)
4 CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER (R B G),
STATE BANK OF INDIA, APPEAL AND REVIEW DEPARTMENT,
CORPORATE CENTRE, POST BOX NO.12, MUMBAI-400021.(THE
MEMBER REVIEW COMMITTEE)
5 CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER,
(APPELLATE AUTHORITY), STATE BANK OF INDIA, LOCAL HEAD
OFFICE, S.S.KOVIL ROAD, TAMPANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN-695001.
WP(C) NO. 16420 OF 2013 -2-
6 GENERAL MANAGER,
APPOINTING AUTHORITY, STATE BANK OF INDIA, LOCAL HEAD
OFFICE, S.S.KOVIL ROAD, TAMPANOOR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN-695001.
7 DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER & DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY,
STATE BANK OF INDIA ZONAL OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
PIN-695001.
8 ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGFER & INQUIRING AUTHORITY
STATE BANK OF INDIA, KOLLAM-691001.
BY ADVS.
SRI.GEORGE THOMAS (MEVADA)(SR.)
SRI.AMAL GEORGE
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
21.05.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
SATHISH NINAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
W.P.(C) No.16420 of 2013
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 21st day of May, 2024
J U D G M E N T
The petitioner was working as the Branch manager in
the State Bank of India. In the disciplinary proceedings
conducted against him, he was found guilty and was
imposed with the major penalty of "removal from
service". The petitioner was unsuccessful in his
appellate remedy and also in the statutory review. The
said orders are under challenge in this writ petition.
2. The petitioner was appointed as a Clerk in the
State Bank of India on 15.03.1993. He was promoted as
Branch Manager on 01.11.2005. From 01.11.2005 to
23.05.2006 he worked as Branch Manager of the Pattambi
Branch of the Bank. On 24.05.2006 he was transferred to
the Regional Office, Kottayam. Subsequently on
bifurcation, he was posted at the Regional office,
Palakkad.
3. On 13.06.2006 the petitioner was suspended
pending enquiry in relation to his conduct/functioning
as the Branch Manager, Pattambi Branch. He was issued
with Ext.P2 memo of charges. The Enquiry Officer, as per
Ext.P5, held certain charges as proved and some as
partially proved.
4. As per Ext.P6, the disciplinary authority
accepted the report. As per Ext.P7 the appropriate
authority considered the charges and findings and held
them to be of serious in nature. The petitioner was
imposed with the major penalty of "removal from
service". Challenging Ext.P7 the petitioner
preferred appeal, as provided for under the Rules,
before the 5th respondent. As per Ext.P9, the authority
considered the appeal and dismissed the same. As enabled
under rule 69(3) of the Rules, the petitioner filed
review petition before the review committee. The same
was considered and rejected as per Ext.P11. The writ
petition has been filed challenging Exts.P7, P9 and P11
orders.
5. I have heard Sri.C.Vathsalan, the learned
counsel for the petitioner and Sri.George Thomas Mevada,
the learned Senior Counsel on behalf of the respondents.
6. The main ground urged by the petitioner is that,
the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the nature
of the charges levelled.
7. This Court was taken exhaustively through Ext.P5
enquiry report. The charges levelled against the
petitioner are essentially,
(i) Grant/sanction of loans beyond the authorised limit
of the Manager,
(ii) Failure to obtain expost facto sanction of loans
granted beyond the authorised limits of the Branch
Manager,
(iii) Disbursal of construction loans/housing loans
without following the stage-wise disbursal
instructions,
(iv) Disbursal of construction loans without conducting
site inspection,
(v) Disbursal of construction loans without obtaining
stage-wise/completion certificates contrary to the
instructions,
(vi) Failure to ensure end use of funds,
(vii) Involvement of middlemen viz; one
Sri.K.P.Ibrahimkutty,
(viii) Routing of large value transactions through the
S.B. Account of the delinquent.
8. The Enquiry Officer found the charges of
sanction of loan beyond the authorised limit and failure
to obtain post facto sanction as proved. The said
charges were even admitted by the delinquent. The
Enquiry officer found that the allegation that no site
inspection was conducted for grant of loans is not
proved. However, it was found that there was failure to
obtain stage-wise certificates and completion
certificates. It was also found that the disbursals were
not made stage-wise but, in lump sum. The enquiry
officer found the charge regarding involvement of
middleman, namely, Sri.K.P.Ibrahimkutty as proved. The
enquiry officer found that the SB accounts of the said
borrowers reveal disbursement of loan amounts to the
borrowers and issuance of cash cheques therefrom in
favour of Sri.K.P.Ibrahimkutty. The Enquiry Officer
found that the Savings Bank Account of the delinquent
was used by the borrowers/relatives as a parking account
for creating sale proceeds of properties, demand loans,
remittance for mutual funds etc. The Enquiry Officer
found that the Demand Draft purchase made on 20.01.2006
for ₹18 lakhs was not genuine and was made merely to
accommodate the borrower. The instrument was not sent
for collection. Having found the charges against the
petitioner-delinquent, the authority imposed the
punishment of "removal from service".
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner would
submit that during the period which the petitioner was
working as a Branch Manager of the Pattambi Branch, the
performance of the petitioner was appreciated and the
petitioner was congratulated by the Regional Manager, as
evidenced by Ext.P1 performance report. Even if the
findings on the charges are accepted, there is no
allegation or finding of any misappropriation by the
petitioner. So also there is no case that any financial
loss resulted to the Bank consequent on the allegations
levelled. He would also draw the attention of this Court
to Ext.R7(c) wherein the disciplinary authority
recommended to the appropriate authority, imposition of
penalty of "reduction to a lower stage in time scale of
pay by three stages for a period of three years with
further directions that the officer will not earn
increments to pay during the period of such reduction
and on the expiry of such period the reduction will have
the effect of postponing the future increments of pay".
Therefore, the imposition of the major penalty of
"removal from service" is highly disproportionate and
liable to be interfered with by this Court, it is
argued.
10. The learned Senior Counsel for the respondents
would on the other hand draw the attention of this Court
to Rule 50 of the State Bank of India, Officers' Service
Rules, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as "the rules")
with regard to the general observance of good conduct,
discipline, integrity, diligence, fidelity etc.,
required from its officers. He also drew the attention
of this Court to Form A to Appendix I to the said Rules
which is a declaration by the officers on receipt of a
copy of the rules and agreeing to be bound by the same.
The charges levelled and proved against the petitioner
are in total violation and derogation of the conduct,
discipline, integrity and diligence mandated for an
officer of the Bank. The charges proved are very serious
in nature. He thus justifies the imposition of the major
penalty of removal from service. He also relied on
various judgments of the Apex Court to contend that,
this Court is not expected to go into the
proportionality of punishment unless it shocks the
conscience of the Court.
11. It could not be disputed that the charges
proven against the petitioner are of very serious nature
and violates the code of conduct prescribed under Rule
50 of the Service Rules. The mere recommendation made by
the disciplinary authority, for reduction to lower post,
cannot stand in the way of the appropriate authority
from considering the gravity of the charges and imposing
appropriate punishment. Rule 67(f to j) of the Rules
provide for the major penalties. They read as under :-
"Major penalties
(f) save as provided for in (e) above reduction to a lower
stage in the time-scale of pay for a specified period, with further
directions as to whether or not the officer will earn increments to
pay during the period of such reduction and whether on the expiry
of such period the reduction will or will not have the effect of
postponing the future increments of his pay;
(g) reduction to a lower grade or post;
(h) compulsory retirement;
(i) removal from service;
(j) dismissal."
The penalty of removal from service is lesser in gravity
than the major penalty of dismissal.
12. In Union of India v. P. Gunasekaran (2015) 2 SCC 610, the
Apex Court, considering the scope of interference with
disciplinary proceedings in exercise of the jurisdiction
under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India,
held:
"13. Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the
High Court shall not :
(i) reappreciate the evidence;
(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the
same has been conducted in accordance with law;
(iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence;
(iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;
(v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings
can be based.
(vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be;
(vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks
its conscience."
The Apex Court reminded that the writ jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution, in disciplinary
proceedings, is only supervisory and not an appellate
jurisdiction. In Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan v. J. Hussain (2013)
10 SCC 106 the Apex Court held that, it is only when the
punishment imposed is found to be outrageously
disproportionate to the nature of charge, it shocks the
conscience of the Court, and the Court finds it totally
unreasonable and arbitrary, that the theory of
proportionality of punishment can be invoked. It was
held that, if the penalty imposed is not found to be
shockingly disproportionate, merely because in the
opinion of the Court a lesser punishment would have been
more justified, it cannot be a reason to interfere with
the penalty imposed by the authority.
13. As noticed above, the punishment imposed on the
petitioner by the appropriate authority on the charges
found against him, is lesser than the maximum punishment
provided under the Rules viz. dismissal from service.
This Court is unable to find that the punishment imposed
is unreasonable or arbitrary, outrageously
disproportionate to the charges, as shocking the
conscience of the Court. Therefore, no interference is
called for with the orders impugned.
Resultantly, the writ petition fails and is
dismissed,
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN
JUDGE
kns/-
//True Copy//
P.S. to Judge
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 16420/2013
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT P1: COPY OF THE PERFORMANCE REPORT DATED 2/2/2006 WITH
CERTIFICATE.
EXHIBIT P2: COPY OF THE ARTICLES OF CHARGE DATED 10.4.2011.
EXHIBIT P3: COPY OF THE BRIEF SUBMITTED BY THE PRESENTING OFFICER
DT.1.11.2007.
EXHIBIT P4: COPY OF THE BRIEF SUBMITTED BY PETITIONER ALONG WITH
DOCUMENTS DT.22.11.2007.
EXHIBIT P5: COPY OF THE FINDING OF THE ENQUIRY OFFICER
DT.31.12.2007.
EXHIBIT P6: COPY OF THE OBSERVATION OF THE DISCIPLINARY OFFICER ON
EXHIBIT P5 DT.10.4.2007.
EXHIBIT P7: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE APPOINTING AUTHORITY (6TH
RESPONDENT) DATED 23.10.2008.
EXHIBIT P8: COPY OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE 5TH RESPONDENT BY THE
PETITIONER DT.20.12.2008.
EXHIBIT P9: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 31.3.2010 BY THE 5TH
RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P10: COPY OF THE REVIEW PETITION BEFORE THE 2ND RESPONDENT
BY THE PETITIONER.
EXHIBIT P11: COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 12.9.2012 BY 3RD AND 4TH
RESPONDENT.
-----
