Madras High Court
S.Rangasamy vs The Chief General Manager on 16 June, 2021
W.A. No.1304 of 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16.06.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
and
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
W.A. No.1304 of 2021
S.Rangasamy ... Appellant
vs
1. The Chief General Manager,
State Bank of India,
21, Rajaji Salai, Chennai – 600 001.
2. The General Manager (D& PB)
State Bank of India,
21, Rajaji Salai, Chennai – 600 001.
...Respondents
Prayer: Writ Appeal filed under clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the
order dated 16.09.2016 made in W.P. No.38912 of 2002.
****
For Appellant : Mr.S.T.Varadarajulu
****
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Page No.1 of 8
W.A. No.1304 of 2021
JUDGMENT
(delivered by Krishnan Ramasamy,J., )
This Writ Appeal is filed challenging the order passed by the
learned Single Judge, in W.P.No.38912 of 2002, dated 16.09.2016.
2. The undisputed facts are as follows:-
i) When the appellant was working in the respondent-Bank, he was
found guilty of certain charges, and hence, he was departmentally
proceeded with, which consequently, resulted in the order of dismissing
him from service. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant filed Writ Petition
assailing the order of dismissal on the ground that the enquiry was not
conducted in a fair and proper manner; and that the findings of the Enquiry
Officer were not based on the evidence placed before him; and that there
was violation of principles of natural justice, as he was not given sufficient
opportunities to substantiate his case.
ii) The learned Single Judge vide a detailed order, (impugned
herein) dismissed the Writ Petition. Against which, the present Writ
Appeal.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A. No.1304 of 2021
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant, perused
the materials available on record and also gone through the order, impugned
herein.
4. We opine that the Writ Appeal has no merit and deserves to be
dismissed, as the issues/contentions that have been raised before us were
already dealt with by the learned Single Judge and for better appreciation,
the operative portion of the order is reproduced as hereunder:-
“6. Though very many contentions have been raised
in this writ petition, the main submission of the learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the evidence
adduced before the Enquiry Officer was not properly
appreciated by the Enquiry Officer and on erroneous
finding, the Enquiry Officer has come to the conclusion that
the petitioner is guilty of the charges levelled against him.
Further, his request for recalling P.W.1-Sambamoorthy was
turned down by the Enquiry Officer and therefore, no
sufficient opportunity was given to the petitioner to prove
his case. But, in my considered opinion, the said submission
made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner will
not serve as a ground to quash the order of dismissal. Even
according to the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner, none of the procedures in conducting enquiry
was violated by the Enquiry Officer. When that being so,
this Court, by re-appreciating the evidence, cannot quash the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A. No.1304 of 2021
order of dismissal. Furthermore, the grounds raised by the
learned counsel appearing for the petitioner are very vague
and flimsy in nature. This Court does not find any perversity
in the finding of the Enquiry Officer. In this regard, it would
be appropriate to refer some of the judgments relied upon by
the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
(A) In All India Services Law Journal
2015 (Vol.2) – G.M.(Operations) SBI and
Anr. v. R.Periyasamy – Civil Appeal 11
No.10942 of 2014 dated 10.12.2014, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:-
“9. It is not really necessary to deal
with the judgment of the learned Single Judge
since that has merged with the judgment of
the Division Bench. However, some
observations are necessary. The learned
Single Judge committed an error in
approaching the issue by asking whether the
findings have been arrived on acceptable
evidence or not and coming to the conclusion
that there was no acceptable evidence, and
that in any case the evidence was not
sufficient. In doing so, the learned Single
Judge lost sight of the fact that permissible
enquiry was whether there is no evidence on
which the enquiry officer could have arrived
at the findings or whether there was any
perversity in the findings. Whether the
evidence was acceptable or not, was a wrong
question, unless it raised a question of
admissibility. Also the learned Single Judge
was not entitled to go into the question of the
adequacy of evidence and come to the 12
conclusion that the evidence was not
sufficient to hold the respondent guilty.”
(B) In (2007) 7 Supreme Court Cases
236 – Bank of India and others v. T.Jogram, it
has been held that when there are no
allegations of procedural irregularities or
illegalities and when there is no violation of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A. No.1304 of 2021
principles of natural justice, the interference
by the High Court in the order of dismissal is
unwarranted.
7. In the present case, even according to the
petitioner, there are no irregularities or illegalities in the
procedure adopted by the enquiry officer in conducting
the enquiry. Hence, it is clear that there is no violation
of principles of nature justice in conducting the enquiry.
The only grievance of the petitioner is that his request for
recalling P.W.1-Sambamoorthy was not considered and
hence, sufficient opportunity was not given to the petitioner
during the course of enquiry. In my considered opinion, the
said submission of the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner cannot be a ground for quashing the order of
dismissal. Moreover, from the records, it could be seen that
P.W.1- Sambamoorthy was cross examined in detail by the
petitioner. That is the reason why his request was turned
down by 13 the enquiry officer. Further, the materials
placed on record would show that the petitioner himself by
admitting his guilt, has returned the amount of Rs.60,000/-
to the complainant Perumal. In such circumstances,
absolutely, I do not find any infirmity in the order of
dismissal passed by the first respondent.”
5. A perusal of the report of the Enquiry Officer would reveal that
the Enquiry Officer has extensively gone into the issue and thereafter, he
has given such findings. Further, the Enquiry Officer also recorded in his
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A. No.1304 of 2021
findings that the appellant admitted the guilt and repaid the sum of
Rs.60,000/- stated to have been misappropriated by him. Thus, when the
appellant himself admitted the guilt and repaid the sum of Rs.60,000/- to
the complainant, where comes the question of quashing the dismissal order.
Further, P.W.1 was not recalled for further cross-examination for the simple
reason that the appellant extensively cross-examined P.W.1. The Enquiry
Officer has also given reasonable opportunities to elucidate the case of the
appellant. In fact, the appellant also admitted that there is no violation of
rules and regulations in conducting the enquiry proceedings. All these
aspects were rightly considered by the learned Single Judge and passed a
well-reasoned order and there is no necessity for us to interfere with the
same. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
[P.S.N., J.] [K.R., J.]
16.06.2021
sd
Index : Yes/No
To
1. The Chief General Manager,
State Bank of India,
21, Rajaji Salai, Chennai – 600 001.
2. The General Manager (D& PB)
State Bank of India,
21, Rajaji Salai, Chennai – 600 001.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A. No.1304 of 2021
PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J.
and
KRISHNAN RAMASAMY, J.
sd
W.A. No.1304 of 2021
16.06.2021
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
W.A. No.1304 of 2021
Apart from the above, we would like to express that the appellant
has preferred the present Appeal raising same contentions/issues,
wasting the precious time of this Court, and it also indicates that the
appellant is not ready to accept the life that as it comes to him. only in
beffiting cases, where, a serious and important question of law or fact
requires to be still ajudicated by the Appellate Court, Otherwise,
useless pursuit of Appeals like this will go on unabated.
Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
