Kerala High Court
Praveena.V vs General Manager on 25 September, 2025
2025:KER:71620
WP(C)NO.26238/2022 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
THURSDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 3RD ASWINA, 1947
WP(C) NO. 26238 OF 2022
PETITIONER/S:
PRAVEENA.V.
AGED 39 YEARS,W/O. AJAYAN, 'POORNIMA', THEVALAKKARA
P.O., KOLLAM-690524.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.M.SASINDRAN
SHRI.T.S.BHARATH KRISHNA
RESPONDENT/S:
1 STATE BANK OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL
MANAGER, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, POOJAPPURA-695012,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2 THE GENERAL MANAGER,
STATE BANK OF INDIA, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, POOJAPPURA-
695012, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
3 THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER & CDO,
STATE BANK OF INDIA, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, POOJAPPURA-
695012, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
4 THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER AND DISCIPLINARY
AUTHORITY, STATE BANK OF INDIA, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE,
POOJAPPURA-695012, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS. SRI.JITHESH MENON, SC, SBI
SRI.GEORGE THOMAS (MEVADA)(SR.)-R1 TO T4
SRI.AMAL GEORGE -R1 TO R4
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
16.09.2025, THE COURT ON 25.09.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:71620
WP(C)NO.26238/2022 2
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P., J.
......................................................
W.P(C) No.26238 of 2022
......................................................
Dated this the 25th day of September, 2025
JUDGMENT
The petitioner, being aggrieved by the punishment of "discharge
from service with superannuation benefits and without disqualification
from future employment," challenges Ext.P13 Enquiry Report, Ext.P17
order issued by the 4th respondent dated 18.11.2021, and Ext.P19 appellate
order dated 11.03.2022 of the 3rd respondent and forwarded by the 4 th
respondent, whereby the said punishment has been confirmed.
2. The petitioner submits that disciplinary proceedings were
initiated against her, despite having served the respondent bank for eight
years, on the allegation of taking a gold packet from the branch strong
room. During a routine cash and gold verification conducted on
02.07.2020, it was reported that one gold packet could not be traced or
produced for verification. On 08.07.2020, one Renjith, a recently promoted
branch officer, contacted the CHM and requested a visit to the branch on
the same day. During the search, along with other staff members, the
2025:KER:71620
missing packet was found in the parking area, which was not under CCTV
coverage.
3. It was further reported that Mr. Anoop informed the Branch
Manager that Mr. Janeesh had told him that the petitioner had committed
the theft and had confessed the same to Janeesh. On this basis, the
petitioner was suspected, and the Branch Manager asked her to write
down a confession, which she refused. Subsequently, in an attempt to
"settle the matter," the petitioner was allegedly compelled to sign two
blank papers. These papers were later converted into a confession
statement attributed to the petitioner, which was submitted as Ext.P1
letter to the Regional Manager dated 13.07.2020 and as Ext. P2 letter dated
16.07.2020 to the investigating official.
4. Later, it was informed that disciplinary action has been
initiated and Ext. P4 notice was issued, and the following allegations were
made:
"1) You have unauthorisedly carried the high-value gold loan packet of Shri
K.K.Sasidharan Nair out of the branch premises on 30.6.2020 as per your
confession letter dated 13.07.2020 to Regional Manager and also as per your
confession letter dated 16.07.2020 to Shri Alwin Twinkle, Investigating
Official, thus violating Bank's laid down instructions.
2025:KER:71620
2) You have failed to obtain Administrative clearance from the appropriate
authority before receiving the following high value credits from friends and
relatives in your savings bank account No.67301161801, thus violating the
extant instructions of the Bank.
3) You have failed to obtain Administrative clearance from the appropriate
authority before availing the following gold loans in the name of your
husband Shri Jayan Balachandran, who is an NRI, thus violating the extent
instructions of the Bank.
4) You have failed to inform the Branch Manager about the gold packet
carried with you, at the time of leaving the branch premises on 30.06.2020,
thereby violating the laid down instructions of the Bank.
5) You have confessed incorrect Information of leaving the branch premises
Immediately on 30.06.2020 upon hearing the news of your father's ill-health
to take him to hospital(as per your confession letter dated 13.07.2020),
whereas as CCTV footage, your were present in the branch upto 7 p.m."
5. The petitioner submitted her objections as Ext. P5 dated
02.02.2021. On 30.01.2021, she was suspended from service and Ext. P7
charge sheet dated 09.03.2021 was issued. She submitted her reply as Ext.
P8 dated 19.03.2021. The 3rd respondent appointed the Chief Manager as
Enquiry Officer, and written submissions were made by the Presenting
Officer and Defence Representative. Ext.P13 enquiry report found her
guilty of charges 1 and 2, and charges 3 and 4 were partially proved. The
2025:KER:71620
petitioner submitted objections as Ext. P14 dated 21.10.2021. Pursuant to
this, the 4th respondent issued Ext.P15 dated 11.11.2021 and informed her
of the proposal to discharge her from service with superannuation
benefits, and she was called for a personal hearing. Without duly
considering her contentions, the 4th respondent confirmed the
punishment via Ext.P17 and modified the Enquiry Officer's finding
regarding charge No.4 from 'partially proved' to 'proved'.
6. The petitioner submits that the first charge, that she had
taken a high-value gold loan packet without permission on 30.06.2020,
allegedly confessed through letters dated 13.07.2020 and 16.07.2020, is
wholly unsustainable. It is pointed out that she had never authored such
letters and had only, under compulsion, signed blank papers later
converted into purported confessions. Neither the Regional Manager nor
the Investigating Officer, to whom these alleged letters were addressed,
was examined in the enquiry, nor was the handwriting compared with
that of the petitioner. Thus, reliance on such disputed documents is
illegal. The petitioner further contends that the enquiry revealed only
CCTV footage of the strong room, which merely showed her presence
there with other staff during verification, but never showed her taking
2025:KER:71620
any packet. No witness testified to having seen her remove the packet,
and even the Manager's claim that she was holding something was not
corroborated by the CCTV footage. As her entry into the strong room was
under the instruction of superiors for verification purposes, mere
presence cannot constitute proof of guilt. Accordingly, the finding of guilt
on Charge No.1 is baseless and unsustainable.
7. The petitioner contends that the second charge of receiving
funds without sanction is baseless as they were genuine assistance from
her father, father-in-law and close friends for construction of her house,
which the Enquiry Officer ignored; the third charge regarding gold loans
in her husband's name is unsustainable as the duty to obtain clearance lay
solely with the sanctioning authority, not her; and the fourth charge that
she carried the gold packet without informing the Branch Manager is
untenable since she had only visited the Regional Business Office under
the explicit instructions of the Regional Manager, a fact admitted even in
the enquiry.
8. The petitioner submits that though she filed an appeal against
Ext.P17 order dated 18.11.2021, raising specific grounds to establish her
2025:KER:71620
innocence, the appellate authority, by Ext.P19 dated 11.03.2022, rejected it
without properly appreciating her contentions and mechanically
confirmed the punishment. Her review petition was likewise dismissed
vide Ext.P21 order dated 11.07.2022, and ignored the merits of her
submissions and reiterated the earlier findings without proper
application of mind.
9. The petitioner submits that all the allegations are fabricated,
baseless, and without any substance. The Enquiry Officer, relying solely
on surmises and conjectures, found the petitioner guilty of the charges
despite there being no evidence against her, making this a clear case of
"no evidence." The petitioner relies on Deputy General Manager
(Appellate Authority) and Others v. Ajai Kumar Srivastava [(2021) 2 SCC
612], which outlines the circumstances under which the Court can
interfere with the findings of an Enquiry Officer.
10. It is further contended that, although strict rules of evidence
do not apply to departmental enquiry proceedings, the law requires that
allegations against a delinquent employee must be established by
evidence sufficient for a reasonable and objective person to uphold the
2025:KER:71620
gravity of the charge. A perusal of the enquiry report demonstrates that
the petitioner was found guilty without any supporting evidence. The
petitioner also relies on Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank and Ors
[(2009) 2 SCC 570] to contend that the finding of guilt was illegal, as no
evidence was produced to prove misconduct except the alleged confession
letter.
11. In the counter affidavit, the respondents contend that the
writ petition is not maintainable in law or on the facts. Being an award
staff, the petitioner should have approached the Industrial Tribunal, as
writ jurisdiction under Article 226 is not available where an efficacious
alternative remedy exists. The petition is asserted to have been filed
experimentally, and without stating correct facts, and has omitted to
produce relevant documents. It is therefore submitted as a brief narration
of facts that on 30.06.2020, due to a heavy rush in the Adoor Branch, the
petitioner was permitted to assist the Joint Custodians with gold loan
packets. CCTV footage at 16:11 hours shows her entering the strong room,
opening the almirah, and leaving with suspicious conduct, left hand bent
as if hiding something under a dupatta. On 02.07.2020 and 03.07.2020,
during inspection, one gold packet (GL A/c 39351191348) was found
2025:KER:71620
missing. On 08.07.2020, the packet was found concealed in a plastic cover
near the car parking area, which was not under CCTYV surveillance.
Petitioner absented herself on 09.07.2020 and later applied for leave,
citing the containment zone.
12. Petitioner confessed telephonically to colleague Janeesh
about the theft of a gold packet, which was reported to the Branch
Manager. On 13.07.2020, she gave Ext.P1 confession letter to the Regional
Manager. Again, on 16.07.2020, she admitted her misdeeds to the Chief
Manager through Ext. P2 letter. In both letters, the petitioner
acknowledged and admitted her lapses in what transpired on that day.
The incident was reported to higher authorities, declared as "fraud", and
an FIR was lodged on 28.01.2021. After enquiry, punishment of discharge
with superannuation benefits was imposed vide Ext. P17 order. Appeal
and review were rightly rejected by Exts. P19 and P21.
13. After the missing gold packet was retrieved, the Chief
Manager of Adoor Branch, by Ext.R1(A) letter dated 13.07.2020, had
himself requested a thorough official enquiry, including registration of an
FIR. It is significant to note that in her Ext. R1(B) reply letter to the Chief
2025:KER:71620
Manager, the petitioner only denied that Ext. P2 was not written by her,
but did not deny the genuineness of Ext.P1 or dispute the handwriting
contained therein. Likewise, in her subsequent Ext.P5 letter to the
Regional Manager, she stated that both Exts. P1 and P2 were not written
by her, but again stopped short of alleging coercion or compulsion to sign
on the blank papers by the superior officers. Importantly, at no stage in
Exhibits R1(B) or P5 did the petitioner ever allege that she had been
forced by any superior officer to sign on blank papers. The belated story
of being forced to sign blank papers is false and was made for the sake of
argument, as she has neither preferred any police complaint nor any
complaint to the higher authorities, nor arrayed the alleged superior
officers who pressured her to sign. Further, Ext.P12 itself admits that she
signed Ext.P2 after it was prepared by the Investigating Officer, which
completely undermines her present plea of coercion. It is submitted that
the petitioner, for the first time, alleged coercion regarding blank papers
only during the regular enquiry on 23.06.2021, and the enquiry concluded
on 12.07.2021 with witness testimonies through Ext.R1(C) proceedings,
and it corroborates and proves that the petitioner has committed the
theft of the gold packet.
2025:KER:71620
14. In Ext. P13 enquiry report, charges 1 and 2 were proved,
charges 3 and 4 partially proved, and charge 5 not proved; after
considering the petitioner's Ext. P14 and P16 objections, the 4th
respondent by Ext. P17 confirmed the punishment and treated charge 4 as
proven. Ext. P17 suffers from no infirmity, as all contentions and evidence
were duly considered before imposing the penalty. It is further contended
that the non-examination of the Regional Manager and Investigating
Officials does not vitiate the proceedings. The CCTV footage dated
30/06/2020 clearly shows the petitioner entering the strong room,
opening the almirah, concealing something under her dupatta while
leaving, and looking around cautiously, for which she has offered no
explanation. She was also seen in the car parking area before the recovery
of the missing gold. Exts.P1 and P2 confession letters, the corroborative
evidence in the enquiry, and contradictions in her version all establish
her guilt beyond doubt.
15. It is further contended that claiming ignorance or lack of
awareness regarding the requirement of prior permission to receive high-
value credits before sanctioning a gold loan to her husband is highly
improbable and amounts to gross misconduct in handling public funds.
2025:KER:71620
The petitioner's Defence Representative, in Ext. R1(C) proceedings,
admitted the second charge and requested it to be treated as minor
misconduct. The allegations of bias, fabrication, or lack of evidence are
meritless, as the findings are based on confession letters, CCTV footage,
and corroborative witness evidence.
16. In the reply affidavit, the petitioner, reiterating the
contentions in the writ petition, further argues that the State Bank of
India, being an Indian multinational public sector bank and a statutory
financial services body falling under Article 12, renders the writ petition
maintainable.
17. The petitioner further contends that she was deliberately
trapped for reasons known only to the disciplinary authority. The Enquiry
Officer failed to verify the handwriting in the alleged confession letter,
and there are significant anomalies in its preparation. There was no
substantial evidence on the part of the respondents to justify the extreme
punishment imposed. The fact that other staff members were also allowed
to enter the strong room was ignored, and while the clerk, a joint
custodian, received only minor punishment, the petitioner was
2025:KER:71620
discharged from service.
18. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri.M.Sasindran,
apart from reiterating the pleadings, argued that the entire disciplinary
proceedings proceeded based on the confession allegedly made by the
petitioner, as seen from Ext.P1 letter. Since the same contains no
admission of guilt, the same could not have been relied on for taking
action against the petitioner. It is also argued that the disciplinary
authority, in the instant case, modified the finding of the Enquiry Officer
without notice to the petitioner. It is also contended that, though five
charges were raised, only two were proved. It is also argued that there is
absolutely no evidence to show that the gold was taken out of the bank by
the petitioner or as to who has placed the same in the parking area, and,
in the absence of that, the entire allegation against the petitioner should
fall to the ground. The allegation of the missing gold packet kept in the
safe custody of the bank locker was held to be proved without there being
any direct evidence for the same. Thus, this is a case where there is no
evidence against the petitioner to hold that any misconduct was
committed by the petitioner. It is also argued that the confession itself
was created on the signed papers taken from the petitioner by the
2025:KER:71620
superior officers who have higher bargaining power, and the petitioner
had to succumb to their dictates.
19. The learned counsel also relied on the following judgments:
L.I.C. of India and Another v. Consumer Education and Research Centre and
Others [1995 KHC 923 SC], Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank and
others [2009 (2) SCC 570], Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority)
and Others v. Ajai Kumar Srivastava [2021 KHC 6006 SC], S.
Gopalakrishnan Nair v. Secretary to Government and another [2007 (3)
KHC 660] and Somarajan C.G. v. Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies and
others [2009 (3) KHC 304], to support his contentions.
20. The learned Senior counsel for the bank, Sri. George Thomas
Mevada, instructed by Sri. Amal George contends that a reading of Ext.P1
and Ext.R1(B) would show that the petitioner had confessed to the acts
done, and they were on different dates. Likewise, a mere look at Exts.P1
and P2 also would show that the contention of the superior officers'
taking of blank papers is also wrong, as her signature appears in different
places in the said documents. It is also argued that CCTV footage clearly
shows the petitioner taking the gold packet, and the entire record would
2025:KER:71620
clearly prove that the charges that are proved are based on satisfactory
evidence. Despite the charges being proved, the petitioner was
discharged, and the applicable service benefits were also granted without
disqualification from future employment. It is argued that the impugned
orders suffer from no legal infirmity, and they were passed based on
evidence.
21. The learned Senior Counsel also relies on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court Union of India v. Subrata Nath [SCR-2022-18-605:
SCALE-2022-16-828] to contend that it is the disciplinary authority or the
Appellate Authority in appeal, which is to decide the nature of
punishment to be given to the employee, and that given the seriousness of
the misconduct alleged against the petitioner, this is not a fit case where
any interference is warranted. It is also argued that there is no
contention that the enquiry was not held according to the procedure or
that the conclusions arrived at were so arbitrary and capricious that no
reasonable person could have arrived at them. As regards the contention
that the disciplinary authority did not give notice before modifying the
findings of the Enquiry Authority, it is submitted that no such ground has
been taken till this stage and not even in the writ petition, and therefore,
2025:KER:71620
the same cannot be considered.
22. Having considered the rival submissions and perused the
records, it cannot be said that the impugned orders suffer from any
infirmity. The presence of the petitioner at the spot where the gold
ornaments were found missing is not disputed. The fact that the
petitioner did take the gold ornaments is also conceded. Though an
explanation was sought to be given in Ext.P1 and Ext.R1(B), the evidence,
including the CCTV footage, proved otherwise. Under such
circumstances, there is nothing on record to show that the enquiry
proceedings are vitiated for lack of evidence or any other reason. Equally,
there is no material to show that the punishment imposed is
disproportionate. It is also to be seen that though the petitioner was
discharged from service, the service benefits were granted, and that there
is no disqualification from future employment.
23. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Personnel Syndicate
Bank v. B.S.N. Prasad [(2025) 3 SCC 601], Damoh Panna Sagar Rural
Regional Bank v. Munn Lal Jain [(2005) 10 SCC 84], State Bank of India v.
Ramesh Dinkar Punde [(2006) 7 SCC 212], and Disciplinary Authority-cum-
2025:KER:71620
Regional Manager v. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik [(1996) 9 SCC 69], bank
officers are expected to maintain the highest standards of honesty,
integrity, discipline, and devotion. They deal with the money of
depositors and customers, and are bound to protect the interests of the
bank by discharging their duties with utmost diligence and propriety.
Acting beyond one's authority itself constitutes misconduct, regardless of
whether any financial loss or gain has resulted, since the very discipline
of a bank depends on officers acting strictly within their allotted sphere.
A bank officer holds a position of trust where honesty and integrity are
inbuilt requirements, and any deviation undermines public confidence.
Therefore, when misconduct is committed by a bank officer for personal
ends and against the interest of the bank and its depositors, it must be
dealt with firmly and not with leniency.
24. Given the fact that the petitioner was working in a bank that
calls for utmost devotion to prove the full trust of the employee, I am not
inclined to interfere with the orders impugned in the writ petition. As
rightly argued by the learned counsel, Sri. George Thomas Mevada, the
contention that disciplinary authority varied the orders of the Enquiry
Officer without notice also appears to be unsubstantiated, and at any rate,
2025:KER:71620
was never raised earlier at any stage. Therefore, the same cannot be
raised for the first time in this writ petition.
Given the above, I find no merit in the writ petition, and the
same will stand dismissed.
Sd/-
MOHAMMED NIAS C.P.
JUDGE
okb/
2025:KER:71620
APPENDIX OF WP(C) 26238/2022
PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit P1 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13.07.2020
ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN WRITTEN BY THE
PETITIONER AND SUBMITTED IT TO THE REGIONAL
MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA.
Exhibit P2 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16.07.2020
ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN WRITTEN BY THE
PETITIONER AND SUBMITTED TO THE INVESTIGATING
OFFICIAL.
Exhibit P2A A TRUE COPY OF THE READABLE COPY OF EXT.P2.
Exhibit P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.VIG/CON/490
DATED 13.01.2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT
TO THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P4 A TRUE COPY OF THE NOTICE
NO.RBO-4/PTA/19.96.2021 DATED 25.01.2021
ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P5 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 02.02.2021
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE
REGIONAL MANAGER.
Exhibit P6 A TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM NO LHO/OAD/91
DATED 30.01.2021 ISSUED BY THE 4TH
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P7 A TRUE COPY OF THE CHARGE SHEET
NO.VIG/CON/635 DATED 09.03.2021 ISSUED BY THE
4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P8 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY DATED 19.03.2021
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER TO THE 4TH
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P9 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO.VIG/CON/695
DATED 26.03.2021 ISSUED BY THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P10 A TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE ENQUIRY
ON 23.06.2021.
Exhibit P11 A TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE
PRESENTING OFFICER DATED 17-08-2021.
Exhibit P12 A TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE
DEFENSE REPRESENTATIVE DATED 10-09-2021.
Exhibit P13 A TRUE COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT DATED 27-
09-2021 SERVED ON THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P14 A TRUE COPY OF THE OBJECTION DATED 21.10.2021
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER.
2025:KER:71620
Exhibit P15 A TRUE COPY OF THE AGM/OAD/DA/2021-22/019
DATED 11.11.2021 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT
TO THE PETITIONER.
Exhibit P16 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER DATED 16.11.2021.
Exhibit P17 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER AND FORWARDED BY
LETTER NO.AGM/OAD/DA/2021-22/023 DATED
18.11.2021 ISSUED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P18 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 08.01.2022
FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P19 A TRUE COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER OF THE 3RD
RESPONDENT FORWARDED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT BY
LETTER NO LHO/HR/7092/779 DATED 11.03.2022.
Exhibit P20 A TRUE COPY OF THE REVIEW APPEAL DATED
24.05.2022 SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE
THE 2ND RESPONDENT.
Exhibit P21 A TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE 2ND
RESPONDENT FORWARDED ALONG WITH LETTER NO
LHO/HR/877/267 DATED 11.07.2022 OF THE 3RD
RESPONDENT.
RESPONDENT EXHIBITS
Exhibit R1(B) True photocopy of the letter dated nil
(Marked as DEX 1) sent by the petitioner in
response to letter dated 07/09/2020 to the
Chief Manager BCDM Department LHO
Thiruvananthapuram
Exhibit R1(C) True photocopy of the proceedings in the
regular enquiry conducted on 12/07/2021
Exhibit R1(A) True photocopy of the letter dated 13/07/2020
(Marked as DEX 4) sent by Chief Manager Adoor
Branch to the Regional Manager RBO IV
Pathanamthitta
