Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Chief General Manager State Bank Of ... vs V.P. Srivastava on 12 August, 2021
Bench: Navin Sinha, R. Subhash Reddy
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4755 OF 2021
(Arising out of SLP (C)No. 8304 of 2018)
CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
V.P. SRIVASTAVA RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
The appellant Bank is in appeal questioning the order of the High Court setting aside the respondent’s order of dismissal dated 19.06.2002 affirmed by the Appellate Authority on 28.06.2003.
The respondent was a Branch Manager. A Charge sheet was served to him on 29.08.2000 containing two charges which are as follows:
“1. You allowed opening of an account in the name of M/s. Sunrise International without completing the necessary formalities. The account is fake one and it was utilized for encashing two forged drafts aggregating Rs.15,76,080/- through the account. Circumstances connected with the opening and conduct of above account show that you knew the account holder and connived with him for the reasons best known to you. As a result, Bank’s interest was jeopardized and by you in such acts, Bank may suffer a loss.
2. You allowed opening of another four accounts in the name of (i) M/s. Shobha Associates (ii) M/s.
Elcon Sales (iii) M/s. Master Exports & (iv) M/s. Sharda Transport Co., Allahabad, which were fake. The first two accounts were utilized to encash 7 forged drafts aggregating Rs.53,27,650/- through Signature Not Verified these accounts. Circumstances connected with the Digitally signed by Rajni Mukhi opening and conduct of these accounts show that you Date: 2021.08.13 16:58:06 IST Reason: knew the account holders and connived with them for the reasons best known to you. As a result, Bank’s interest was jeopardized and by you in such acts, Bank may suffer a loss.” 1 The respondent filed his reply to the charges denying the same. Witnesses were examined and cross examined. The Inquiry Report followed, a copy of which was furnished to the respondent and he filed his response to the same also. The Disciplinary Authority after considering the reply recommended to the Appointing Authority that the respondent be dismissed from service under Rule 67(j) of the SBI Officers Service Rules read with Rule 68. The Appointing Authority consequently ordered dismissal on 19.06.2002. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent preferred an appeal which has also been dismissed. The orders having been set aside by the High Court, the appellant-Bank assails the same. Shri Sanjay Kapur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, submits that the solitary ground on which the High Court set aside the order of punishment was that the Disciplinary Authority did not record separate reasons while recording his concurrence with the findings of the Inquiry Officer. The order of the Disciplinary Authority is reasoned, reflecting due application of mind, recording a satisfaction with the recommendation of the Inquiry Officer, after considering the objections raised by the respondent. The appeal of the respondent has also been dismissed. He submits that the High Court erred in relying upon Union of India vs. Mohd. Ramzan, AIR 1991 SCC 471, ignoring the law laid down in National Fertilizers Ltd. & Anr. vs. P.K. Khanna, 2005 (7) SCC 597. In support of his submissions Shri Kapur further relies on Ram Kumar vs. State of Haryana,1987 (Supp) SCC 582, National Fertilizers Ltd. vs. P.K.Khanna,(2005) 7 SCC 597 and Boloram 2 Bordoloi vs. Lakhimi Gaolia Bank,(2021)3 SCC 806.
Shri Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, submitted that for what may have been mere procedural irregularities in opening of accounts by the respondent, he has been accused of connivance without any materials in support of the same. The order of the Disciplinary Authority is mechanical in nature, bereft of any reasons and simply reiterates the charges. A rhetorical incantation that he had applied his mind to the report of the Inquiry Officer and the materials on record was not sufficient unless and until it reflects independent of application of mind by recording of separate reasons. The Disciplinary Authority while considering the objections to the Inquiry Report was acting in a quasi judicial capacity. Errors in the Inquiry report were pointed out, notwithstanding which there is no separate consideration or reasoning.
It is next submitted that documents were exhibited and relied upon in the Inquiry behind the back of the respondent as neither were they mentioned in the list of documents or supplied to the respondent. On basis of these documents, it was held that he had committed irregularities in opening the accounts which was not his responsibility according to bank procedures. Reliance was placed on Allahabad Bank vs. Krishna Narayan Tiwari, (2017) 2 SCC 308 and H.P.SEB vs. Mahesh Dahiya, (2017) 1 SCC 768. The last alternate submission was that the matter may be remanded for fresh consideration.
We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties. The respondent during the pendency of the litigation attained the 3 age of superannuation in 2008.
The respondent was a Branch Manager, holding a responsible position. He was alleged to have opened fake accounts in connivance with customers and from which accounts Bank Drafts of a total value of Rs.62.75 lakhs were encashed causing financial loss to the Bank. During the inquiry, evidence was led by the Bank and the respondent also cross examined the witnesses. A finding of guilt was returned by the Inquiry Officer. A copy of the inquiry report was furnished to the respondent by the Disciplinary Authority. After consideration of his reply, the Disciplinary Authority recommended dismissal.
We have gone through the order of the disciplinary authority. After reciting that he had gone through the proceedings of the inquiry the exhibits, defence brief, the defence exhibits and the findings of the inquiry officer including the defence submissions made by the respondent and after considering the materials he arrived at the conclusion that the circumstances connected with the opening of the accounts, the respondent had connived in opening the fake accounts causing financial loss to the Bank. The disciplinary authority then went on to discuss the details as to why he was not satisfied with the reply furnished by the respondent to arrive at his recommendation for removal from service.
Even otherwise, if the disciplinary authority was concurring with the report of the Inquiry Officer, he was not required to record separate reasons in support of his own conclusions, but a satisfaction that he had considered all relevant materials including the objections of the delinquent.
4 This Court in National Fertilizers Ltd.(supra) after taking note of Ram Kumar (supra) observed as follows :
“9. Apart from misreading the enquiry Officer's report, the High Court also misapplied the law. The various decisions referred to in the impugned judgment make it clear that the disciplinary authority is required to give reasons only when disciplinary Authority does not agree with finding of the enquiry officer. In this case the disciplinary authority had concurred with the findings of the enquiry Officer wholly. In Ram Kumar v. State of Haryana 1987 (Supp) SCC 582, the disciplinary authority after quoting the content of the charge- sheet, the deposition of witnesses as recorded by the enquiry officer, the finding of the enquiry officer and the explanation submitted by the employee passed an order which, in all material respects, is similar to the order passed by the disciplinary authority in this case. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent sought to draw a distinction on the basis that the disciplinary authority had, in Ram Kumar's case itself quoted the details of the material. The mere quoting of what transpired would not amount to the giving of any reasons. The reasons were in the penultimate paragraph which we have said virtually used the same language as the impugned order in the present case. This Court dismissed the challenge to the order of punishment in the following words:
"8. In view of the contents of the impugned order, it is difficult to say that the punishing authority had not applied his mind to the case before terminating the services of the appellant. The punishing authority has placed reliance upon the report of the enquiry officer which means that he has not only agreed with the findings of the enquiry officer, but also has accepted the reasons given by him for the findings. In our opinion, when the punishing authority agrees with the findings of the enquiry officer and accepts the reasons given by him in support of such findings, it is not necessary for the punishing authority to again discuss evidence and come to the same findings as that of the enquiry officer and give the same reasons for the findings. We are unable to accept the contention made on behalf of the appellant that the impugned order of termination is vitiated as it is a non- speaking order and does not contain any reason. When by the impugned order the 5 punishing authority has accepted the findings of the enquiry officer and the reasons given by him, the question of non- compliance with the principles of natural justice does not arise. It is also incorrect to say that the impugned order is not a speaking order".
More recently in Boloram Bordoloi (supra) this Court reiterated the same principle as follows:
“11. We are of the view that the judgment of this Court in ECIL v. B. Karunakar (1993) 4 SCC 727 is not helpful to the case of the appellant. Further, it is well settled that if the disciplinary authority accepts the findings recorded by the enquiry officer and passes an order, no detailed reasons are required to be recorded in the order imposing punishment. The punishment is imposed based on the findings recorded in the enquiry report, as such, no further elaborate reasons are required to be given by the disciplinary authority. As the departmental appeal was considered by the Board of Directors in the meeting held on 10.12.2005, the Board’s decision is communicated vide order dated 21.12.2005 in Ref. No.LGB/I&V/Appeal/31/02/200506.
In that view of the matter, we do not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that orders impugned are devoid of reasons.” Shri Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, had very strenuously sought to urge before us that the departmental Inquiry was vitiated because materials had been considered behind the back of the respondent and relied upon to hold him guilty. The Inquiry Officer had relied upon the Circulars of the Bank with regard to the procedures to be followed in opening new accounts which had been breached. The respondent being a Branch Manager, was naturally aware and conversant with the same. No prejudice can be said to have been caused to him.
We have also gone through the objections taken by the respondent in the departmental appeal. We find no grounds of any 6 procedural irregularity vitiating the inquiry. As observed earlier, the respondent had cross examined witnesses also. The order of the Appellate Authority adequately notices that the opening of the account of M/s. Sunrise International was not bona fide, because the introducer of the account had deposed in the inquiry that he did not know the proprietor of M/s. Sunrise International and he had introduced the accounts at the behest of the respondent. Similarly in the case of M/s. Sharda Transport Company, the respondent admitted that the procedures for opening an account were not followed by him and they were not even complied with subsequently.
Mahesh Dahiya (supra), relied upon by Shri Mishra, is distinguishable on its own facts. A decision to terminate had already been taken without having the benefit of comments from the delinquent and because of which it was held that issuance of the notice for termination on a preconceived opinion was bad in the law. In that context it was held that there was violation of the principle of natural justice by the disciplinary authority when opinion was formed to punish without forwarding the inquiry report to the delinquent for obtaining his comments.
In Allahabad Bank (supra), after recording that a writ court should be slow in interfering with finding of facts recorded in departmental proceedings on the basis of evidence available on record, it was concluded that there had been grave procedural irregularities in the conduct of the proceedings as the delinquent was not given a fair chance to lead evidence in defence. It was in that background that this Court came to the conclusion that failure 7 to deal with the objections to the inquiry report by the disciplinary authority would vitiate the final order.
At this stage, we consider it very necessary to take note of certain observations in Boloram (supra) with regard to the post that the respondent held, of public trust, dealing with public money as follows :
“13. The manager of a bank plays a vital role in managing the affairs of the bank. A bank officer/employee deals with the public money. The nature of his work demands vigilance with the inbuilt requirement to act carefully. If an officer/employee of the bank is allowed to act beyond his authority, the discipline of the bank will disappear. When the procedural guidelines are issued for grant of loans, officers/employees are required to follow the same meticulously and any deviation will lead to erosion of public trust on the banks. If the Manager of a bank indulges in such misconduct, which is evident from the charge memo dated 18.06.2004 and the findings of the enquiry officer, it indicates that such charges are grave and serious. In spite of proved misconduct on such serious charges, disciplinary authority itself was liberal in imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the punishment imposed in the disciplinary proceedings on the appellant, is disproportionate to the gravity of charges. As such, this submission of the learned counsel for the appellant also cannot be accepted.” In the result, the order of the High Court is held to be not sustainable and is set aside. The appeal is allowed.
………………………………….J. [NAVIN SINHA] ..………………………………….J. [R. SUBHASH REDDY] NEW DELHI;
AUGUST 12, 2021
8
ITEM NO.7 Court 8 (Video Conferencing) SECTION XI
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 8304/2018
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 12-01-2018 in WA No. 45227/2003 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad) CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS V.P. SRIVASTAVA Respondent(s) Date : 12-08-2021 This petition was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sanjay Kapur, AOR Ms. Megha Karnwal, Adv.
Mr. V.M. Kannan, Adv.
Mrs. Shubhra Kapur, Adv.
Mr. Arjun Bhatia, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Krishna Mohan Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Krishnam Mishra, AOR Mr. Param Kr. Mishra, Adv.
Mr. Shashank, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R The order of the High Court is set aside and the appeal is allowed in terms of signed order.
Pending application (s)shall stand disposed of.
(RAJNI MUKHI) (DIPTI KHURANA)
COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH)
(Signed order is placed on the file)
9