Madras High Court
Niranjan Kumar Poddar vs 2 The General Manager(Network-2) on 20 September, 2023
WP.No.30688/2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 20.09.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
WP.No.30688/2016 & WMP.No.26590/2016
Niranjan Kumar Poddar ... Petitioner
Versus
1 The Chief General Manager
Appellate Authority, State Bank of India
Circle Top House, 16, College Lane
Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 006.
2 The General Manager(Network-2)
Appointing Authority, State Bank of
India, 86, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-600 001. ... Respondents
Prayer : - Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India praying for issuance of a writ of certiorari calling for the records
pertaining to the petitioner in No.DIS/CON/161 dated 01.07.2015 passed by
the 2nd respondent and A&R 35 dated 30.09.2016 passed by the 1st
respondent and quash the same.
For Petitioner : Mr.R.Abdul Mubeen
For Respondents : Mr.C.Mohan for
M/s.King and Patridge
1
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.30688/2016
ORDER
(1) This writ petition has been filed in the nature of a certiorari seeking
records of an order of the 2nd respondent, General Manager
[Network-2], Appointing Authority, State Bank of India, dated
01.07.2015 in in No.DIS/CON/161 and also the order passed by the
1st respondent, Chief General Manager, Appellate Authority, State
Bank of India Chennai, dated 30.09.2016 in A&R 35 and to quash
both the said orders.
(2) In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner had
stated that he had originally joined the respondents/State Bank of
India as Probationary Officer in the year 2009 and on confirmation,
was posted as Branch Manager at Athavanur between June 2011 and
September 2011. It must be mentioned even before proceeding
further with the facts, that Athavanur Branch of State Bank of India is
in Yelagiri in Vellore District.
(3) It is contended by the petitioner in his affidavit that during that period
of deputation at Athavanur Branch, he stayed at Yelagiri Holiday
Home for a period of one month between 29.11.2013 and 28.12.2013.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.30688/2016
Thereafter, he submitted the bills for his stay at Yelagiri Holiday
Home at Rs.1,300/- per day for a period of fourteen days amounting
to Rs.29,325/- by bill dated 13.12.2013. He also submitted yet
another bill dated 28.12.2013 for a total sum of Rs.33,000/-. These
bills included not only lodging and boarding charges, but also halting
and travelling allowance. The petitioner claimed that he had sought
disbursal of a sum of Rs.43,875/- for lodging expenses. In the
affidavit, it had been further stated that the respondents had for some
reasons, entertained a suspicion about the veracity of the bills
submitted by him, and claimed that the bills were false, that the bills
were bogus and that the bills were fake. Contending so, they had
issued a charge memo against the petitioner herein on 27.11.2014.
The petitioner gave an explanation on 18.12.2014. He contended that
it was an error of not maintaining proper ledger and bills by Yelagiri
Holiday Home. He had also submitted his formal explanation. In this
regard, it must also be pointed out that the petitioner appears to have
been advised by those in the Union. Be that as it may, he also
contended that there have been several precedents by various Bank
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.30688/2016
officials who had submitted false and fake bills and as against them,
charges had been dropped. But, it is also pertinent to point out that
the names of those officials who had the benefit of the charges which
had been dropped, had not been stated in the affidavit. Thereafter, an
Enquiry Officer was appointed and he proceeded to conduct the
enquiry.
(4) The two charges which had been framed against the petitioner herein
during the enquiry proceedings were that the lodging bills submitted
by the petitioner were different from the bills as used normally by
Yelagiri Holiday Home at Athavanur. It is also stated in the said
charge that the Registers of Yelagiri Holiday Home do not reflect that
the petitioner had ever stayed in that particular Holiday Home during
the said period. This fact, according to the respondents, was also
confirmed in writing by the Manager of Yelagiri Holiday Home. The
second charge was more specific with respect to Room No.201 and it
was contended by the respondents and also by the officials of Yelagiri
Holiday Home that there was no such room bearing No.201 at all in
Yelagiri Holiday Home. The rooms bear only Nos.101 to 108. It was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.30688/2016
also contended that the maximum tariff per day was Rs.880/-
whereas, the petitioner had claimed a sum of Rs.1,300/-. The above
are the brief allegations against the petitioner enunciated in the charge
memo. The enquiry thereafter proceeded and there is no complaint
either in the affidavit or during the arguments by the learned counsel
for the petitioner that opportunity was not granted during the enquiry
process.
(5) The respondents had produced their witnesses to substantiate the
charges and the petitioner was also granted necessary opportunity to
rebut the evidence produced. Thereafter, on the basis of the evidence
which had been produced, the Enquiry Officer found that the
allegations had been established. The matter then shifted over to the
Disciplinary Authority to pass appropriate orders of punishment since
the charges have been found established by the Enquiry Officer.
(6) The Disciplinary Authority and again there is no argument advanced
either during the course of arguments or stated in the affidavit that the
procedure adopted by the Disciplinary Authority was in violation of
any principles of natural justice, had thought that a punishment of cut
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.30688/2016
in increment could be imposed on the petitioner herein. Thereafter,
the papers moved on to the Appointing Authority. The Appointing
Authority again examined the entire records and after concurring with
the findings of the Enquiry Officer, which was also confirmed by the
Disciplinary Authority relating to the establishment of the charges,
however thought that the punishment imposed would not suffice the
seriousness, according to him, of the allegations and therefore,
imposed a punishment of removal from service.
(7) It is contended by the petitioner herein during the course of
arguments that no opportunity was granted by the Appointing
Authority before taking a divergent view from that taken by the
Disciplinary Authority relating to the punishment which could be
imposed and was actually imposed on the petitioner herein. However,
in the order of the Appointing Authority, it was mentioned that the
petitioner was called over for personal hearing and an opportunity of
personal hearing was granted to him and a specific date was also
mentioned, namely, that he was so afforded a personal hearing on
15.06.2015. Nowhere in the affidavit has it been stated that on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.30688/2016
15.06.2015, no such opportunity had ever been granted. This is a
statement made across the Bar by the learned counsel for the
petitioner. The petitioner, for reasons best known to him, who had an
opportunity to examine the contents in the affidavit and had actually
verified that the contents are true to his knowledge, had never stated
that the statement by the Appointing Authority in his order that
personal opportunity was granted on 15.06.2015, is a false statement.
Be that as it may, the Appointing Authority, took a divergent view
and had imposed a punishment of removal from service. Thereafter,
the petitioner had filed a further appeal before the Appellate
Authority / 1st respondent herein. The 1st respondent also had
concurred with, not only with the findings that the allegations stood
established, but also concurred with the punishment imposed by the
Appointing Authority / 2nd respondent, namely, that of removal from
service. Questioning these two orders, the present writ petition had
been filed.
(8) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents herein,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.30688/2016
wherein once again there has been a travel through the nature of
allegations which had been raised against the petitioner herein. Let
me not go back to the allegations since that would only be a repetition
of facts narrated and there is no denial or dispute about the nature of
charges or that the charges stood established during the course of
enquiry. Thereafter, the only issue which was urged by the learned
counsel for the petitioner is about the punishment imposed not by the
Disciplinary Authority, but by the Appointing Authority. The
Appointing Authority had imposed a punishment of removal from
service which is well within the Rules of the respondents/Bank and
that has been justified by the respondents in the counter affidavit by
stating that the nature of allegations and the charges which stood
established, invited such a punishment to be imposed and it was also
stated in the counter affidavit that it had been so imposed only, after
granting an opportunity of personal hearing. The punishment,
therefore, has been justified by the respondents in their counter
affidavit. It had also been stated that the petitioner had exhausted his
further remedy by filing an appeal and it had been contended that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.30688/2016
Appellate Authority / 1st respondent had also considered all the
aspects, not only on facts, but also on the nature of punishment
imposed, and had come to a definite conclusion that since the charges
had been established, the punishment was proportionate to the
charges. It had therefore been contended that the writ petition should
be dismissed.
(9) Heard arguments advanced by Mr.R.Abdul Mubeen, learned counsel
for the petitioner and Mr.C.Mohan, for M/s.King and Patridge,
learned counsels for the respondents.
(10) It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner whose background has been explained in much detail, not
only in the affidavit but also in the orders of the respondents that he
comes from a less privileged background and had joined the Bank as
Probationary Officer with high hopes. It is also stated that he had the
opportunity of his services as Probationary Officer being confirmed
which would show that the respondents, at that particular point of
time, had contended that his services were of such quality and order
that they should confirm his services and thereafter, they had posted
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.30688/2016
him as Branch Manager in Athavanur Branch in Yelagiri in Vellore
District.
(11) The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner was
there on official duty and though advanced arguments with respect to
the facts of the allegations, it was only an exercise in hopelessness
since the charges had been established concurrently, not only by the
Enquiry Officer, but also on review by the Disciplinary Authority,
and when again re-examined by the Appointing Authority, and also
finally confirmed by the Appellate Authority / 1st respondent herein.
The learned counsel for the petitioner therefore, shifted his arguments
to violation of principles of natural justice.
(12) In this connection, he stated that the Appointing Authority, though
had came to a definite conclusion concurring with the findings of the
Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority with respect to the
establishment of charges, had however, deviated from the punishment
as imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. It was therefore contended
that the petitioner should have been given an opportunity at that
stage. It was contended that such opportunity should not only be an
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.30688/2016
opportunity on paper, but also be one in letter and spirit. It should be
effective and there should be a record maintained on such opportunity
being granted. Though the learned counsel stated on instructions,
that the statement made in the impugned proceedings that personal
hearing was granted on 15.06.2015 was not correct, still I would not
place much credence to that particular line of argument since the
petitioner herein, in his affidavit, had not taken up that particular
stand. Any argument could be based only on what was stated by the
petitioner in his affidavit and not otherwise. An additional affidavit
has also not been presented before the Court though the matter had
come up for hearing before this Court atleast on three earlier
occasions.
(13) The learned counsel for the petitioner then pointed out the issue of
proportionality of the punishment imposed and wondered whether the
nature of allegations namely of producing false bills of stay while on
official duty, would invite a major punishment of removal from
service.
(14) The learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard, placed strong
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.30688/2016
reliance, with respect to the issue of proportionality, on the judgment
reported in 2010 [6] SCC 614 [Chairman, All India Railway
Recruitment Board and Another Vs. K.Shyam Kumar and Others].
That judgment had touched the portals of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
owing to facts relating to investigation of 62 candidates against whom
there were serious allegations of impersonation during a recruitment
process. There had been a vigilance report indicating leakage of
question paper, large scale impersonation of candidates, mass copying
etc., in the written test and also possibility of involvement of Railway
staff and outsiders.
(15) Quite honestly, the facts therein could not be compared with the facts
of this case, where it is a single instance of producing fake bills by the
petitioner herein. At any rate, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had
occasion to examine the issue of proportionality. The issue of
proportionality came up originally for consideration in the House of
Lords in R.Daly Vs. Secretary of State for the Home Department
reported in 2001 [2] AC 532. It was brought in as a corollary to the
Wednusbury principle. The Wednusbury principle itself came up in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.30688/2016
administrative jurisprudence in Associated Provincial House Vs.
Wednusbury Corporation [1948 [1] KB 223], where a condition that
no children under the age of fifteen years shall be admitted to any
entertainment whether accompanied by an adult or not was
challenged. The Court held that the said direction was extremely
irrational that no rational person could impose such condition. As a
follow-up of Wednusbury principles, came the theory of
proportionality to determine whether the punishment which was
imposed, was proportional to the nature of the allegations. There
were tests which form the nucleus of the theory of proportionality.
One was whether the decision maker had struck the right balance
between the nature of allegations and the punishment imposed. There
cannot be a disproportionate punishment imposed when the nature of
allegations did not warrant such punishment to be so imposed. It
should also take into consideration, the other interests namely, the
impact of such punishment and if too serious a punishment is
imposed, the probable effect it would have. Another was scrutiny of
the entire aspect of balancing the nature of allegations and the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.30688/2016
punishment which had been imposed to determine whether it was
appropriate and in this view, the principles of human rights also came
into consideration. These principles were enunciated by the Lord
Steyn in the judgment reported in 2001 [3] All Enquiry Report 433
[HL].
(16) In the judgment which the learned counsel for the petitioner relied
on, namely, the All India Railway Recruitment Board referred supra,
much reliance was placed on paragraph No.37, which is as follows:-
''37. Proportionality requires the court to judge
whether action taken was really needed as well as
whether it was within the range of courses of action
which could reasonably be followed. Proportionality is
more concerned with the aims and intention of the
decision-maker and whether the decision-maker has
achieved more or less the correct balance or
equilibrium. The court entrusted with the task of
judicial review has to examine whether decision taken
by the authority is proportionate i.e. well balanced and
harmonious, to this extent the court may indulge in a
merit review and if the court finds that the decision is
proportionate, it seldom interferes with the decision
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.30688/2016
taken and if it finds that the decision is
disproportionate i.e. if the court feels that it is not well
balanced or harmonious and does not stand to reason
it may tend to interfere.''
(17) The learned counsel for the petitioner then placed quite strong
reliance on the judgment reported in 1998 [7] SCC 84 [Punjab
National Bank and Others Vs. Kunj Behari Misra]. This appeal was
heard along with another appeal, in Civil Appeal No.7433/1995
[Chief Personnel Disciplinary Authority, Punjab National Bank
and Others Vs. Shanti Prasad Goel]. This judgment was relied on by
the learned counsel with respect to opportunity to be granted when a
different view was taken with respect to the nature of punishment
which was to be imposed. The Regulations of the Punjab National
Bank were relied on and much reliance was placed on paragraphs
No.18, 19 and 20, which are as follows:-
''18. Under Regulation 6, the enquiry
proceedings can be conducted either by an enquiry
officer or by the disciplinary authority itself. When the
enquiry is conducted by the enquiry officer, his report
is not final or conclusive and the disciplinary
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.30688/2016
proceedings do not stand concluded. The disciplinary
proceedings stand concluded with the decision of the
disciplinary authority. It is the disciplinary authority
which can impose the penalty and not the enquiry
officer. Where the disciplinary authority itself holds an
enquiry, an opportunity of hearing has to be granted by
him. When the disciplinary authority differs with the
view of the enquiry officer and proposes to come to a
different conclusion, there is no reason as to why an
opportunity of hearing should not be granted. It will be
most unfair and iniquitous that where the charged
officers succeed before the enquiry officer, they are
deprived of representing to the disciplinary authority
before that authority differs with the enquiry officer's
report and, while recording a finding of guilt, imposes
punishment on the officer. In our opinion, in any such
situation, the charged officer must have an opportunity
to represent before the disciplinary authority before
final findings on the charges are recorded and
punishment imposed. This is required to be done as a
part of the first stage of enquiry as explained
in Karunakar case [(1993) 4 SCC 727 : 1993 SCC
(L&S) 1184 : (1993) 25 ATC 704] .
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.30688/2016
19. The result of the aforesaid discussion would
be that the principles of natural justice have to be read
into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the
disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry
authority on any article of charge, then before it
records its own findings on such charge, it must record
its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to
the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent
before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry
officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed
and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to
persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the
favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The
principles of natural justice, as we have already
observed, require the authority which has to take a
final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an
opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file
a representation before the disciplinary authority
records its findings on the charges framed against the
officer.
20. The aforesaid conclusion which we have
arrived at is also in consonance with the underlying
principle enunciated by this Court in the case
of Institute of Chartered Accountants [(1986) 4 SCC
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.30688/2016
537 : (1986) 1 ATC 714] . While agreeing with the
decision in Ram Kishan case [(1995) 6 SCC 157 :
1995 SCC (L&S) 1357 : (1995) 31 ATC 475] we are of
the opinion that the contrary view expressed in S.S.
Koshal [1994 Supp (2) SCC 468 : 1994 SCC (L&S)
1019 : (1994) 27 ATC 834] and M.C. Saxena [State of
Rajasthan v. M.C. Saxena, (1998) 3 SCC 385 : 1998
SCC (L&S) 875] cases do not lay down the correct
law.''
(18) The ratio laid down in the aforementioned paragraphs is that the
Disciplinary Authority can impose penalty and not the Enquiry
Officer. It was also held that when the Disciplinary Authority
himself/herself holds an enquiry, then, an opportunity of hearing has
to be given with respect to the punishment imposed. It was also held
that when the Disciplinary Authority differed with the view of the
Enquiry Officer and proposed to come to a different conclusion, then,
an opportunity of hearing should be given.
(19) It must however be stated that in this particular writ petition under
consideration, during enquiry, documents had been produced and no
ground had been raised that on facts, the Enquiry Officer should have
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.30688/2016
come to a different conclusion. As a matter of fact, a certiorari has
not been sought with respect to the records of the Enquiry Officer
who was the fact finding authority. Therefore, it would be extremely
inappropriate on the part of this Court to travel on facts. It has to be
held that the facts had been established as against the petitioner
herein.
(20) The learned counsel for the petitioner therefore stated that the Court
should re-examine the entire issue particularly keeping in mind the
background of the petitioner herein and his future prospects which
had come to a sudden halt owing to the punishment which had been
imposed by the Appointing Authority. It was therefore urged that this
Court should re-examine the entire issue with respect to the
punishment imposed and interfere with the punishment so imposed
against the petitioner herein namely that of removal from service.
(21) The learned counsel for the respondents however contended that
these factors should not play on the mind of the Court.
(22) The learned counsel for the respondents made a fervent attempt to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.30688/2016
state the facts. But the facts are admitted and there are no controversy
raised about them. The allegations stood proved during the enquiry.
(23) With respect to the nature of procedure adopted, particularly by the
Appointing Authority, who exercised his right to differ from the
punishment as imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, the learned
counsel for the respondents, placed reliance on the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1994 Supp [2] SCC 479 [State
Bank of Hyderabad and Others Vs. Rangachary], and it was
contended that the Regulations of the State Bank of Hyderabad had
been considered and it had been held that the authorities have every
right to decide the punishment which should be imposed on the basis
of the allegations. It had been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
paragraph No.8 as follows:-
''8. A reading of the above provisions shows that
the Enquiry Officer has to submit the record and his
findings along with his recommendation to the
disciplinary authority. If the disciplinary authority
agrees with the findings it can impose the punishment
which it is competent to do. However, if, disciplinary
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.30688/2016
authority disagrees with the findings of the enquiring
authority on any article of charge it is under an
obligation to record its reasons for disagreement and
record its own findings on such charges. If, however,
the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that any of
the major penalties mentioned in clauses (e), (f), (g)
and (h) of Regulation 67 ought to be imposed, which he
cannot impose, he has to make over the entire record
along with his recommendations to the appointing
authority. It is open to the appointing authority to
impose such penalty as it considers appropriate in its
opinion. Clause (iv) of sub-regulation (3) shows that it
is open to the appointing authority as well as the
disciplinary authority to come to their own findings on
all or any of the article of charges and if they are of the
opinion that no penalty is called for notwithstanding
the report of the Enquiry Officer, they can pass an
order exonerating the delinquent officer.......''
(24) The learned counsel for the respondents also placed reliance on the
judgment reported in 2007 [7] SCC 236 [Bank of India Vs.
T.Jogram]. This judgment was with respect to the restriction of the
scope of judicial review particularly when procedure had been
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.30688/2016
followed and findings have been held established during the course of
enquiry and when such findings had been consistently confirmed by
the other authorities. It was stressed by the learned counsel for the
respondents that the facts of the present case are similar. The
respondent therein who was a Clerk in the appellant/Bank, was
transferred to Hyderabad and while working at Secundrabad, had
claimed travel expenses, lodging and boarding expenses and halting
allowance and it was found that the claims were inflated. The
charges were held proved. Finally, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, had
held as follows:-
''13. In B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of
India [(1995) 6 SCC 749 : 1996 SCC (L&S) 80], a
three-Judge Bench of this Court held in para 12 as
under: (SCC p. 759)
“12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a
decision but a review of the manner in which
the decision is made. Power of judicial review
is meant to ensure that the individual receives
fair treatment and not to ensure that the
conclusion which the authority reaches is
necessarily correct in the eye of the court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.30688/2016
When an inquiry is conducted on charges of
misconduct by a public servant, the
Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine
whether the inquiry was held by a competent
officer or whether rules of natural justice are
complied with. Whether the findings or
conclusions are based on some evidence, the
authority entrusted with the power to hold
inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to
reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that
finding must be based on some evidence.
Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor
of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein,
apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the
authority accepts that evidence and conclusion
receives support therefrom, the disciplinary
authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent
officer is guilty of the charge. The
Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review
does not act as appellate authority to
reappreciate the evidence and to arrive at its
own independent findings on the evidence. The
Court/Tribunal may interfere where the
authority held the proceedings against the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.30688/2016
delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with
the rules of natural justice or in violation of
statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry
or where the conclusion or finding reached by
the disciplinary authority is based on no
evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such
as no reasonable person would have ever
reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with
the conclusion or the finding, and mould the
relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts
of each case.”
14. In Regional Manager, U.P. SRTC v. Hoti
Lal [(2003) 3 SCC 605 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 363] this
Court observed as under: (SCC p. 614, para 10)
“If the charged employee holds a position of
trust where honesty and integrity are inbuilt
requirements of functioning, it would not be
proper to deal with the matter leniently.
Misconduct in such cases has to be dealt with
iron hands. Where the person deals with public
money or is engaged in financial transactions
or acts in a fiduciary capacity, the highest
degree of integrity and trustworthiness is a
must and unexceptionable. Judged in that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.30688/2016
background, conclusions of the Division Bench
of the High Court do not appear to be proper.
We set aside the same and restore order of the
learned Single Judge upholding the order of
dismissal.”
15. By now it is well-settled principle of law that
judicial review is not against the decision. It is against
the decision-making process. In the instant case, there
are no allegations of procedural
irregularities/illegality and also there is no allegation
of violation of principles of natural justice. Counsel for
the respondent tried to sustain the allegation of mala
fide. He tried to assert that the respondent filed a case
against the Chief Manager of Secunderabad Branch in
1996 and the enquiry initiated against the respondent
is the fallout of mala fide. We are unable to accept the
bald allegations. The allegation of mala fide was not
substantiated. It is well-settled law that the allegation
of mala fide cannot be based on surmises and
conjectures. It should be based on factual matrix.
Counsel also tried to assert the violation of principles
of natural justice on the ground that the documents
required by the respondent were not supplied to him.
From the averment it is seen that the documents, which
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.30688/2016
were sought to be required by the respondent, were all
those bills submitted by the respondent himself before
the authority. In these circumstances, no prejudice
whatsoever was caused to the respondent.
16. As already noticed the charge on the
respondent was of violation of Regulation 3(1) of the
Bank of India Officer Employees' (Conduct)
Regulations, 1976. The Regulation requires that every
officer employee shall at all times take all possible
steps to ensure and protect the interest of the Bank and
discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty,
devotion and diligence and do nothing which is
unbecoming of a bank officer.
17. In the view that we have taken the impugned
order of the Division Bench of the High Court is
unsustainable in law. It is accordingly set aside. The
order of the learned Single Judge is restored. The writ
petition filed by the respondent shall stand dismissed.
The appeal is allowed. No costs.''
(25) The learned counsel for the respondents also relied on the judgment
of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 2006 [7] SCC 212 [State
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.30688/2016
Bank of India and Others Vs. Ramesh Dinkar Punde], which again
was with respect to the issue of judicial review. It had been held in
that case, that the High Court had erred in acting as a Court of Appeal
and in reappreciating the evidence. The procedure adopted by the
High Court was frowned upon by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and
guidelines were laid down relating to judicial review and whether
reappreciation of evidence was permissible or not. Quite thankfully,
in the present case, there is no occasion for reappreciation of the
evidence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:-
''14. We may now notice a few decisions of this
Court in similar circumstances.
15. In Union of India v. Sardar
Bahadur [(1972) 4 SCC 618 : (1972) 2 SCR 218] it is
held as under: (SCC p. 623, para 15)
''A disciplinary proceeding is not a
criminal trial. The standard proof required is
that of preponderance of probability and not
proof beyond reasonable doubt. If the inference
that lender was a person likely to have official
dealings with the respondent was one which a
reasonable person would draw from the proved
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.30688/2016
facts of the case, the High Court cannot sit as a
court of appeal over a decision based on it. The
Letters Patent Bench had the same power of
dealing with all questions, either of fact or of
law arising in the appeal, as the Single Judge
of the High Court. If the enquiry has been
properly held the question of adequacy or
reliability of the evidence cannot be canvassed
before the High Court. A finding cannot be
characterised as perverse or unsupported by
any relevant materials, if it was a reasonable
inference from proved facts. (SCR p. 219)''
16.In Union of India V. Parma Nanda [1989 [2]
SCC 177 : 1989 SCC [&S] 303, it is held at SCC
p.189, para 27 as under:-
''27.. We must unequivocally state that
the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to interfere with
the disciplinary matters or punishment cannot
be equated with an appellate jurisdiction. The
Tribunal cannot interfere with the findings of
the inquiry officer or competent authority
where they are not arbitrary or utterly
perverse. It is appropriate to remember that the
power to impose penalty on a delinquent officer
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.30688/2016
is conferred on the competent authority either
by an Act of legislature or rules made under the
proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution. If
there has been an enquiry consistent with the
rules and in accordance with principles of
natural justice what punishment would meet the
ends of justice is a matter exclusively within the
jurisdiction of the competent authority. If the
penalty can lawfully be imposed and is imposed
on the proved misconduct, the Tribunal has no
power to substitute its own discretion for that of
the authority. The adequacy of penalty unless it
is mala fide is certainly not a matter for the
Tribunal to concern itself with. The Tribunal
also cannot interfere with the penalty if the
conclusion of the inquiry officer or the
competent authority is based on evidence even
if some of it is found to be irrelevant or
extraneous to the matter.''
17. In Union Bank of India v. Vishwa
Mohan [(1998) 4 SCC 310 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 1129]
this Court held at SCC p. 315, para 12 as under:
“12. After hearing the rival contentions, we are
of the firm view that all the four charge-sheets
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.30688/2016
which were enquired into relate to serious
misconduct. The respondent was unable to
demonstrate before us how prejudice was
caused to him due to non-supply of the enquiry
authority's report/findings in the present case.
It needs to be emphasised that in the banking
business absolute devotion, diligence, integrity
and honesty needs to be preserved by every
bank employee and in particular the bank
officer. If this is not observed, the confidence of
the public/depositors would be impaired. It is
for this reason, we are of the opinion that the
High Court had committed an error while
setting aside the order of dismissal of the
respondent on the ground of prejudice on
account of non-furnishing of the enquiry
report/findings to him.”
18. In Chairman and MD, United Commercial
Bank v. P.C. Kakkar [(2003) 4 SCC 364 : 2003 SCC
(L&S) 468] this Court held at SCC pp. 376-77, para 14
as under:
“14. A bank officer is required to
exercise higher standards of honesty and
integrity. He deals with the money of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.30688/2016
depositors and the customers. Every
officer/employee of the bank is required to take
all possible steps to protect the interests of the
bank and to discharge his duties with utmost
integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and
to do nothing which is unbecoming of a bank
officer. Good conduct and discipline are
inseparable from the functioning of every
officer/employee of the bank. As was observed
by this Court in Disciplinary Authority-cum-
Regional Manager v. Nikunja Bihari
Patnaik [(1996) 9 SCC 69 : 1996 SCC (L&S)
1194] it is no defence available to say that
there was no loss or profit resulted in case,
when the officer/employee acted without
authority. The very discipline of an
organisation more particularly a bank is
dependent upon each of its officers and officers
acting and operating within their allotted
sphere. Acting beyond one's authority is by
itself a breach of discipline and is a
misconduct. The charges against the employee
were not casual in nature and were serious.
These aspects do not appear to have been kept
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.30688/2016
in view by the High Court.”
19. In Regional Manager, U.P. SRTC v. Hoti
Lal [(2003) 3 SCC 605 : 2003 SCC (L&S) 363] it was
pointed out as under: (SCC p. 614, para 10)
“If the charged employee holds a
position of trust where honesty and integrity
are inbuilt requirements of functioning, it
would not be proper to deal with the matter
leniently. Misconduct in such cases has to be
dealt with iron hands. Where the person deals
with public money or is engaged in financial
transactions or acts in a fiduciary capacity, the
highest degree of integrity and trustworthiness
is a must and unexceptionable.”
20. In Cholan Roadways Ltd. v. G.
Thirugnanasambandam [(2005) 3 SCC 241 : 2005
SCC (L&S) 395] this Court at SCC p. 247, para 15
held:
“15. It is now a well-settled principle of law
that the principles of the Evidence Act have no
application in a domestic enquiry.”
21. Confronted with the facts and the position of
law, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that
leniency may be shown to the respondent having
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.30688/2016
regard to long years of service rendered by the
respondent to the Bank. We are unable to countenance
such submission. As already said, the respondent being
a bank officer holds a position of trust where honesty
and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning
and it would not be proper to deal with the matter
leniently. The respondent was a Manager of the Bank
and it needs to be emphasised that in the banking
business absolute devotion, diligence, integrity and
honesty needs to be preserved by every bank employee
and in particular the bank officer so that the
confidence of the public/depositors is not impaired. It
is for this reason that when a bank officer commits
misconduct, as in the present case, for his personal
ends and against the interest of the bank and the
depositors, he must be dealt with iron hands and he
does not deserve to be dealt with leniently.''
(26) The learned counsel for the respondents also placed reliance on the
judgment reported in 2019 [16] SCC 69 [State Bank of India Vs.
Mohammad Badruddin] with respect to the issue of opportunity to
represent against the proposed penalty. The observations of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court were as follows:-
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.30688/2016
''16. We have heard the learned counsel for the
parties and find merit in the arguments raised by Mr
Viswanathan, learned Senior Counsel for the
appellants, to some extent. The 42nd Constitutional
Amendment deleted the following words appearing in
clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution of India,
which reads as under:
“and where it is proposed, after such inquiry to
impose on him any such penalty, until he has
been given a reasonable opportunity of making
representation on the penalty proposed, but
only on the basis of the evidence adduced
during such inquiry.”
17. A perusal of such omitted provisions would
show that an opportunity was required to be given to
submit a representation on penalty proposed but such
requirement had been omitted by 42nd Constitutional
Amendment. This Court in Mohd. Ramzan case [Union
of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, (1991) 1 SCC 588 :
1991 SCC (L&S) 612] considered the effect of
amendment and held as under: (SCC pp. 594-96, paras
9, 12 & 15)
“9. Where, however, the inquiry officer
furnishes a report with or without proposal of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.30688/2016
punishment the report of the inquiry officer
does constitute an additional material which
would be taken into account by the disciplinary
authority in dealing with the matter. In cases
where punishment is proposed there is an
assessment of the material and a tentative
conclusion is reached for consideration of the
disciplinary authority and that action is one
where the prejudicial material against the
delinquent is all the more pronounced.
***
12. We have already noticed the position that
the Forty-second Amendment has deleted the
second stage of the inquiry which would
commence with the service of a notice
proposing one of the three punishments
mentioned in Article 311(1) and the delinquent
officer would represent against the same and
on the basis of such representation and/or oral
hearing granted the disciplinary authority
decides about the punishment. Deletion of this
part from the concept of reasonable
opportunity in Article 311(2), in our opinion,
does not bring about any material change in
regard to requiring the copy of the report to be
provided to the delinquent.
***
15. Deletion of the second opportunity from the
scheme of Article 311(2) of the Constitution has
nothing to do with providing of a copy of the
report to the delinquent in the matter of making
his representation. Even though the second
stage of the inquiry in Article 311(2) has been
abolished by amendment, the delinquent is still
entitled to represent against the conclusion of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.30688/2016
the inquiry officer holding that the charges or
some of the charges are established and
holding the delinquent guilty of such charges.
For doing away with the effect of the enquiry
report or to meet the recommendations of the
inquiry officer in the matter of imposition of
punishment, furnishing a copy of the report
becomes necessary and to have the proceeding
completed by using some material behind the
back of the delinquent is a position not
countenanced by fair procedure. While by law
application of natural justice could be totally
ruled out or truncated, nothing has been done
here which could be taken as keeping natural
justice out of the proceedings and the series of
pronouncements of this Court making rules of
natural justice applicable to such an inquiry
are not affected by the Forty-second
Amendment. We, therefore, come to the
conclusion that supply of a copy of the inquiry
report along with recommendation, if any, in
the matter of proposed punishment to be
inflicted would be within the rules of natural
justice and the delinquent would, therefore, be
entitled to the supply of a copy thereof. The
Forty-second Amendment has not brought
about any change in this position.”
18. Later, the Constitution Bench in B.
Karunakar [ECIL v. B. Karunakar, (1993) 4 SCC 727
: 1993 SCC (L&S) 1184] affirmed the said judgment to
hold that it was no longer necessary to issue a notice to
the delinquent employee to show cause against the
punishment proposed. The Court held as under: (SCC
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.30688/2016
pp. 751, 753 & 756-57, paras 19, 25, 29 & 30)
“19. In Mohd. Ramzan Khan case [Union of
India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, (1991) 1 SCC
588 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 612] the question
squarely fell for consideration before a Bench
of three learned Judges of this Court viz. that
although on account of the Forty-second
Amendment of the Constitution, it was no
longer necessary to issue a notice to the
delinquent employee to show cause against the
punishment proposed and, therefore, to furnish
a copy of the enquiry officer's report along with
the notice to make representation against the
penalty, whether it was still necessary to
furnish a copy of the report to him to enable
him to make representation against the findings
recorded against him in the report before the
disciplinary authority took its own decision
with regard to the guilt or otherwise of the
employee by taking into consideration the said
report. The Court held that whenever the
enquiry officer is other than the disciplinary
authority and the report of the enquiry officer
holds the employee guilty of all or any of the
charges with proposal for any punishment or
not, the delinquent employee is entitled to a
copy of the report to enable him to make a
representation to the disciplinary authority
against it and the non-furnishing of the report
amounts to a violation of the rules of natural
justice.
***
25. While the right to represent against the
findings in the report is part of the reasonable
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.30688/2016
opportunity available during the first stage of
the inquiry viz. before the disciplinary authority
takes into consideration the findings in the
report, the right to show cause against the
penalty proposed belongs to the second stage
when the disciplinary authority has considered
the findings in the report and has come to the
conclusion with regard to the guilt of the
employee and proposes to award penalty on the
basis of its conclusions. The first right is the
right to prove innocence. The second right is to
plead for either no penalty or a lesser penalty
although the conclusion regarding the guilt is
accepted. It is the second right exercisable at
the second stage which was taken away by the
Forty-second Amendment.
***
29. Hence it has to be held that when the
enquiry officer is not the disciplinary authority,
the delinquent employee has a right to receive a
copy of the enquiry officer's report before the
disciplinary authority arrives at its conclusions
with regard to the guilt or innocence of the
employee with regard to the charges levelled
against him. That right is a part of the
employee's right to defend himself against the
charges levelled against him. A denial of the
enquiry officer's report before the disciplinary
authority takes its decision on the charges, is a
denial of reasonable opportunity to the
employee to prove his innocence and is a
breach of the principles of natural justice.
30. …(iv) In the view that we have taken viz.
that the right to make representation to the
disciplinary authority against the findings
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.30688/2016
recorded in the enquiry report is an integral
part of the opportunity of defence against the
charges and is a breach of principles of natural
justice to deny the said right, it is only
appropriate that the law laid down in Mohd.
Ramzan case [Union of India v. Mohd.
Ramzan Khan, (1991) 1 SCC 588 : 1991 SCC
(L&S) 612] should apply to employees in all
establishments, whether Government or non-
Government, public or private. This will be the
case whether there are rules governing the
disciplinary proceeding or not and whether
they expressly prohibit the furnishing of the
copy of the report or are silent on the
subject. Whatever the nature of punishment,
further, whenever the rules require an inquiry
to be held, for inflicting the punishment in
question, the delinquent employee should have
the benefit of the report of the enquiry officer
before the disciplinary authority records its
findings on the charges levelled against him.
Hence, Question (iv) is answered accordingly.”
(emphasis supplied)
19. In K. Manche Gowda case [State of
Mysore v. K. Manche Gowda, AIR 1964 SC 506] , the
inquiry officer recommended that the delinquent may
be reduced in rank. But while serving show-cause
notice after the report of the inquiry officer, the
disciplinary authority proposed punishment of
dismissal from service. The order of punishment
considered the previous punishments imposed upon the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.30688/2016
delinquent to come to the conclusion that the
delinquent is unfit to continue in government service
and, therefore, he was ordered to be dismissed from
service. It was, in these circumstances, the Court
ordered that the past conduct can be taken into
consideration during the second stage of inquiry,
which essentially relates more to the domain of
punishment rather than to that of guilt. An opportunity
should be given to the delinquent to know that fact and
meet the same.
20. The omission of the words from clause (2) of
Article 311 of the Constitution reproduced above
completely changes the requirement of serving notice
in respect of the proposed punishment. The amended
provisions of Article 311 of the Constitution of India
have been considered in Mohd. Ramzan case [Union
of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, (1991) 1 SCC 588 :
1991 SCC (L&S) 612] and later in B. Karunakar
case [ECIL v. B. Karunakar, (1993) 4 SCC 727 : 1993
SCC (L&S) 1184] . The judgment of this Court
in Nicholas Piramal India Ltd. [Nicholas Piramal
India Ltd. v. Harisingh, (2015) 8 SCC 272 : (2015) 2
SCC (L&S) 686] arises out of an award passed by the
Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.30688/2016
The jurisdiction of the Labour Court is much wider
where the punishment can be reviewed by the Labour
Court in terms of Section 11-A of the said Act.
21. This Court in Punjab National Bank v. K.K.
Verma [Punjab National Bank v. K.K. Verma, (2010)
13 SCC 494 : (2011) 1 SCC (L&S) 408] has taken the
same view that right to represent against the proposed
penalty has been taken away by the 42nd Amendment.
It was so held: (SCC p. 508, para 32)
“32. Thus, the right to represent against the
findings in the inquiry report to prove one's
innocence is distinct from the right to represent
against the proposed penalty. It is only the
second right to represent against the proposed
penalty which is taken away by the 42nd
Amendment. The right to represent against the
findings in the report is not disturbed in any
way. In fact, any denial thereof will make the
final order vulnerable.”
22. Thus, the requirement of the second show-cause
notice of proposed punishment has been dispensed
with. The mandate now is only to apprise the
delinquent of the inquiry officer's report. There is no
necessity of communicating proposed punishment
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.30688/2016
which was specifically contemplated by clause (2) of
Article 311 prior to the 42nd Amendment.''
(27) I have carefully considered the arguments advanced on either side and
also perused the material records.
(28) It is a case where the petitioner, a young Probationary Officer, and
whose services had been regularised, is knocking the doors of this
Court on allegations of producing fake and false bills while on
deputation at Yelagiri as Branch Manager of Athavanur Branch of
State Bank of India. Naturally, there was a responsibility cast on him
as Branch Manager to set an example to the other staff and one way
in which he should certainly set an example is by acting in a manner
where his bona fides are not suspected. It is claimed that the
petitioner had produced bills for stay at Yelagiri Holiday Home at
Room No.201. He had produced bills for that stay for a period of
well over a month and claimed that the tariff was Rs.1,300/- per day.
Factually, it had been established that though there is Yelagiri
Holiday Home at Yelagiri, there is no Room No.201 at the said
Yelagiri Holiday Home. Factually, it has also been established that
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.30688/2016
the tariff per day was around Rs.880/- and not Rs.1,300/-. These facts
stare on the face of the petitioner herein and has neither been denied
nor disputed during the arguments. It was not argued that holding
such allegations as held established, was based on improper
appreciation of evidence.
(29) No doubt, it is true that in departmental proceedings, the manner in
which the evidence will have to be evaluated, would be only on
preponderance of probabilities and not based on strict proof. But,
where it is based on preponderance of probabilities or of strict proof,
one underlying factor is that the evidence has to be trustworthy. It is
the same evidence which is placed before the Enquiry Officer and the
same evidence which is also placed before a Court of Law.
(30) In a departmental proceedings, if there are gaps in the evidence, the
probabilities can be examined to determine whether based on
inferences, the gaps can be closed and an inference can be drawn.
Before a Court examining an offence as defined under the Indian
Penal Code, where there are gaps in the evidence, the Court can never
close those gaps. The golden thread which runs through criminal
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.30688/2016
jurisprudence as opposed to departmental proceedings is that no
amount of suspicion could be termed as proof of a fact in a Criminal
Court. There must be proof established of each and every fact
alleged. Even if the proof is based on circumstantial evidence, there
must be a chain linking each circumstance to form one common
thread of evidence as against the accused therein.
(31) In a departmental proceedings, the same evidence can be evaluated
and even if there are gaps and even if the chain is not completely
linked, a small leverage is given to draw an inference. The pendulum
relating to probability swings in favour of the charged official. The
determination of a fact would have to be based on the same set of
evidence namely, the oral and documentary evidence produced before
the Enquiry Officer. It is only appreciation of such evidence and the
conclusion reached on the basis of such evidence which alone differs
as between departmental proceedings and a criminal trial.
(32) In this case, the respondents had examined the Manager of Yelagiri
Holiday Home. He was the best person to state whether there is a
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.30688/2016
room bearing No.201 in Yelagiri Holiday Home or not. He had
categorically stated that there is no Room No.201 at all. The
petitioner had produced bills as if he had stayed in Room No.201. It
is the contention of the petitioner that the ledgers maintained by the
said Holiday Home were not proper. But again, that would be
stretching the issue too far as it would go contrary to the fact namely,
that there is no Room No.201. However much any individual should
search around the Holiday Home at Yelagiri, nobody can find Room
No.201. The only obvious inference which could be therefore drawn
is that, the bills produced bearing Room No.201 is either fake or
produced for the purpose of claiming reimbursement for stay.
Therefore, the Court would only be entering into an unchartered path
if once again the facts in this particular case were to be re-examined.
The facts cannot and should not be re-examined. They had been held
established during the course of enquiry and such findings had been
confirmed by the Disciplinary Authority and confirmed by the
Appointing Authority and further confirmed by the Appellate
Authority. Therefore, the allegations against the petitioner stood
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.30688/2016
established.
(33) The only factor is about the punishment to be imposed. The Enquiry
Officer had forwarded the Enquiry Report to the Disciplinary
Authority. The Disciplinary Authority, on his appreciation of
evidence, had thought that a cut in increment would be a proportional
punishment so far as the nature of the allegations are concerned. He
then forwarded the papers to the Appointing Authority. The
Appointing Authority however took a different stand. He concurred
with the Disciplinary Authority that the allegations were held proved.
However, the Appointing Authority had differed with the nature of
punishment to be imposed.
(34) It must be kept in mind that the Appointing Authority had granted an
opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner herein. I would state
that as a fact established. This is so because in the affidavit, the
petitioner had not stated anywhere that he was never granted any
personal opportunity by the Appointing Authority. It was only during
the course of arguments today that the learned counsel for the
petitioner remonstrated that such opportunity was never granted. But,
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.30688/2016
to substantiate that particular submission, the petitioner had not filed
an additional affidavit. Balancing this, there is a specific statement
in the counter affidavit that personal opportunity was actually granted
by the Appointing Authority.
(35) The Appointing Authority in his reasons, has stated as follows:-
''....The Disciplinary Authority after unbiased
perusal of charges, IA's findings and CSO's submission
and other relevant records produced to him, had
observed that 2 charges leveled against CSO had been
proved. In as much as CSO had produced bogus bills
with a sole intention to claim wrong gain which is
different from the normal tariff structure at the holiday
home. In addition to that the official had produced
computerized bill, whereas manual bill in writing only
were issued at the holiday home. Moreover, he had not
produced any materials evidence to substantiate his
stay at the holiday home. After taking into
consideration of the official's past track record, he
proposed to award the punishment of ''Reduction to a
lower stage i.e., JMGS-I and fixing the basic pay at
the initial stage i.e., Rs.14,500/- for a period of three
years with further directions that the officer will not
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.30688/2016
earn increments to pay during the period of such
reduction and on the expiry of such period the
reduction will not have the effect of postponing the
future increments of his pay'' on Shri Niranjan Kumar
Podda, Officer, JMGS-I, in terms of Rule 67[f] of
SBIOSR, 1992, which would meet the ends of justice.
I, as Appointing Authority, having gone through
the charges levelled, IA's findings, CSO's submission
and DA's views along with other relevant records. I
observe that charges have been colcusively proved and
malafides are discernible on official's part. I therefore,
am not in agreement with DA's views and punishment
and award the punishment of ''Removal from service''
under Rule 67[i] of SBIOSR 1992, on Shri Niranjan
Kumar Poddar, Officer, JMGS-I, which would meet the
ends of justice.
In this connection, the CSO was advised to apper
before me, for a personal hearing on the proposed
penalty on 15.06.2015 and no new facts brought out
during the personal hearing. While it is a real case
that a young official gets involved in such petty things,
I have no other alternative, but to continue with the
proposed punishment.
Accordingly, in compliance of Rule No.68[3][iii]
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.30688/2016
of State Bank of India Officer's Service Rules, I order
to impose aforesaid penalty upon Shri Niranjan Kumar
Poddar, Officer, JMGS-I. I further order that this
order be served on the CSO, Shri Niranjan Kumar
Poddar, Officer, JMGS-I, and a copy thereof be placed
in his Service Record file.
This order will come into effect from the date on
which it is served on the CSO.
Shri Niranjan Kumar Poddar, Officer, JMGS-I,
may, if he so desires, prefer an appeal against this
order to the Appellate Authority within 45 days from
the date of receipt of this order in terms of Rule 69[1]
and [2] of State Bank of India Officer's Service Rules
[SBIOSR].''
(36) This portion had been read over by the learned counsel for the
petitioner and it was stated that no specific reasons have been given
as to why the Appointing Authority had differed from the findings of
the Disciplinary Authority. But the question which begs an answer is
what would be the nature of reasons which could be so offered and
which reason could be stated as one of subjective satisfaction. The
Appointing Authorityapplied his mind to the facts and circumstances
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.30688/2016
of the case and had then come to an independent decision,
independent that of the conclusion reached by the Disciplinary
Authority. He should give an opportunity to the petitioner and ask
his views about the nature of punishment. He did so. He gave an
opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner herein and thereafter,
had also stated that the personal hearing touched upon the proposed
punishment to be imposed. The nature of punishment has to be
examined on the touchstone of the satisfaction of the respective
authorities who have a responsibility to keep the dignity and sanctity
and the discipline of the Bank. The Court cannot substitute itself for
the Appointing Authority and re-examine whether the punishment
imposed was proportionate or should be reduced. Views might differ.
But, it is the view of the Appointing Authority which has to be
examined and while examining so, the only aspect to be examined is
whether the principles of natural justice had been violated or
followed. There cannot be a better opportunity granted than of
personal hearing. There is no whisper that during the personal
hearing, the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to put forth his
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.30688/2016
views. As a matter of fact, no statement has been given by the
petitioner in his affidavit relating to this aspect of personal hearing
granted. The only conclusion which the Court has to take is that
sufficient and adequate opportunity was granted by the Appointing
Authority before coming to the conclusion that removal from service
should be imposed. The imposition of the punishment of removal
from service is also within the Rules and Regulations of the State
Bank of India.
(37) In this connection, the nature of punishments which could be so
inflicted, are given in Rule 67 of the State Bank of India Officers'
Service Rules, 1992. This is a Manual which is relied on by both the
learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the
respondents.
(38) Rule 67 relates to penalties and while coming to a major penalty, they
are as follows:-
Major Penalties:-
[f]save as provided for in [e]above reduction to
a lower stage in the time scale of pay for a specific
period with further directions as to whether or not the
officer will earn increments to pay during the period of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.30688/2016
such reduction and whether on the expiry of such
period the reduction will or will not have the effect.
[g]reduction to a lower grade or post ;
[h]compulsory retirement ;
[i]removal from service ;
[j]dismissal.
(39) It is thus seen that major penalties would also include reduction to
lower stage in the time scale of pay, reduction to a lower grade of
post, compulsory retirement, removal from service and dismissal. It
would also extend to termination of service of an Officer.
(40) The Appointing Authority therefore, had a range of punishments to be
imposed. He had concluded, taking into consideration the fact and
blatant manner in which fake bills had been produced by the
petitioner, without showing any remorse, invited a punishment of
removal from service. This is to the subjective satisfaction of the
Appointing Authority and the only manner in which it can be
interfered with is, if an opportunity of personal hearing had not been
granted. Opportunity had been granted.
(41) As stated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court cannot sit as a
Court of Appeal as against the orders of the officials of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.30688/2016
respondents. The Court can only examine whether proper procedure
had been followed. The stand of the respondents was that an
opportunity was granted by the Appointing Authority. It was only
during the course of arguments that it was stated that opportunity was
not granted. This statement is not supported in the affidavit filed by
the petitioner. It would be extremely inappropriate on the part of this
Court to once again revisit the said punishment.
(42) The petitioner had also exhausted his appeal remedy against the order
of the Appointing Authority. The Appellate Authority had also
concurred with the findings.
(43) The Appellate Authority had noted the contentions of the petitioner
that he had joined with great ambition the Banking career which was
his childhood dream and that he comes from a downtrodden rural
family and that his mother was aged and was undergoing medical
treatment.
(44) These are statements made by the petitioner. But, these are aspects
which must have played upon the mind of the petitioner before he
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.30688/2016
produced fake and false bills. He should have thought for a minute
before submitting those bills and claiming reimbursement. He has
not only submitted false bills but also had obtained monetary benefit.
Had he been a little thoughtful about his own family, he would not
have produced those false bills. Therefore, the petitioner has to face
the repercussion of his own acts. It is not as if those bills were
foisted on him and he was asked to produce them to benefit
somebody else. The bills were produced for his own benefit and he
had wrongfully gained by production of such bills.
(45) The Appellate Authority had finally held as follows:-
My Observations:-
Past Track record of the appellant had been
taken note of. However, achievements and past track
records alone are not mitigating factors for the serious
lapses held as proved. Further, the penalty imposed on
the appellant was commensurate with the gravity of
misconduct committed by him.
04.The appellant failed to discharge his duties
with utmost devotion and diligence which is in
violation of Rule No.50[4] of the State Bank of India
Officers' Service Rules.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.30688/2016
05.After carefully perusing the submissions made
by the appellant in his appeal, note that he has not
raised any notable point of merit to rebut the
allegations /charges held as proved. Upon an
independent and dispassionate application of mind and
careful consideration of the facts and circumstances of
the case, I am of the opinion that the penalty of
''removal from service'' in terms of Rule 67[i] of
SBIOSR imposed on him is proportionate to the gravity
of lapses and there is no valid reason to intervene with
the penalty imposed by the Appointing Authority. In
the circumstances, I confirm the penalty on him and
reject the appeal of Shri Niranjan Kumar Poddar,
officer, JMGS-I, [since removed from service] as
without substance.''
(46) This conclusion is again the subjective satisfaction of the Appellate
Authority. The Court can never review the same. The punishment
imposed will have to be necessarily declared as being proportionate
to the charges and the Court cannot sit over as a further Appellate
Authority and re-examine the same. If the doctrine of proportionality
is to be considered, it will have to be also kept in mind that acts of
such nature by a Branch Manager would only trigger a chain reaction
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.30688/2016
among all other official staff. As a matter of fact, the petitioner had
justified producing fake bills on the ground of precedents. In his own
affidavit he had stated that he had been informed that there were
earlier occasions of officials producing fake bills and charges being
dropped. That is not a chain reaction to be encouraged.
(47) The petitioner will necessarily have to suffer an order of dismissal of
the writ petition since this Court can never encourage such a chain
reaction to continue. There is no Room No.201, but the petitioner
had produced bills for the said Room No.201. Though the tariff was
only Rs.880/- per day, he had produced bills for Rs.1,300/- per day.
These facts touches upon the confidence which the general public
will also have in a Bank official when he himself is alleged to have
misappropriated the money. It would be stretching the issue too far if
the Court were to interfere with the punishment imposed.
(48) In view of the above observations, the writ petition stands dismissed.
No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.30688/2016
20.09.2023
AP
Internet : Yes
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.30688/2016
To
1 The Chief General Manager
Appellate Authority, State Bank of India
Circle Top House, 16, College Lane
Nungambakkam, Chennai-600 006.
2 The General Manager(Network-2)
Appointing Authority, State Bank of
India, 86, Rajaji Salai, Chennai-600 001.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
WP.No.30688/2016
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.,
AP
WP.No.30688/2016
20.09.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
