Madras High Court
S.Humashankar vs State Bank Of India on 30 October, 2024
W.P.No.41065 of 2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 09.09.2024 Pronounced on : 30.10.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR
W.P.No.41065 0f 2015
S.Humashankar ... Petitioner
Vs.
1. State Bank of India,
Represented by its Chief General Manager (Appellate Authority),
HR Department, Local Head Office,
Circle Top House, No.16, College Lane,
Chennai – 600 006.
2. General Manager (Network 2),
Disciplinary Authority, State Bank of India,
Local Head Office Floor No.7,
Circle Top House, No.16, College Lane,
Chennai – 600 006. ... Respondents
Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to
issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records concerned records
from the 1st Respondent to quash the order of the 1st respondent dated 14.08.2014
sent along with Letter dated 14.08.2014 bearing A&R- 207 and the order of the 2nd
Respondent dated 11.10.2013 sent along with his letter dated 12.10.2013 bearing
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 1 of 28
W.P.No.41065 of 2015
VIG/CCD/101 and consequently direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner
with full back wages, continuity of service and all other attendant benefits.
For Petitioner : Mr.Balan Haridas
For Respondents : MR.S.Ravindran, Senior Counsel
for Mr.S.Bazeer Ahamed
ORDER
The brief facts that are relevant for disposal of this Writ Petition are as under:-
1.1. The petitioner herein was initially appointed as 'Assistant (Accounts/ Cash)' in the respondent Bank on 09.08.1996. Thereafter, he was promoted as a 'Trainee Officer' with effect from 01.08.2001 and in the said capacity, the petitioner worked as the Branch Manager of Melsanankuppam Branch from 28.04.2004 to 16.08.2008 and thereafter, he was transferred to Kottar Branch. While the petitioner was working at Kottar Branch, a show-cause notice, dated 30.01.2012 was issued on certain allegations against the petitioner in connection with discharge of his duties as the Branch Manager of Melsanankuppam Branch relating to sanction of gold and other loans. In response to the same, the petitioner submitted https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 2 of 28 W.P.No.41065 of 2015 his explanation on 11.02.2012. However, thereafter a charge-sheet dated 14.09.2012 was issued to the petitioner containing four charges and the petitioner submitted explanation denying all the charges levelled against him. Consequently, an Enquiry Officer was appointed and the Enquiry Officer, after having conducted the enquiry, submitted his report dated 29.01.2013 to the Respondent No.2/ Disciplinary Authority, holding that the Charge No.1 as not proved and Charge Nos.2 and 3(ii) and Charge No.4 as proved.
1.2. However, the Respondent No.2 differed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer on Charge No.1 and communicated his Dissent Note along with the report of the Enquiry Officer to the petitioner through his Letter dated 10.04.2013, requiring the petitioner to make his submissions, if any. In response to the same, the petitioner submitted his objections and thereafter, the Respondent No.2 issued a notice affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner by letter dated 02.09.2013. Thereafter, Respondent No.2 passed an order dated 11.10.2013, holding that all the charges framed against the petitioner as proved and https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 3 of 28 W.P.No.41065 of 2015 imposed the penalty of dismissal from service in terms of Rule 67(i) of the State Bank of India Officers' Service Rules, 1992. Aggrieved by the said order dated 11.10.2013, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Respondent No.1 on 02.12.2013. The said appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected by the Respondent No.1 by an order dated 14.08.2014. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a Review before the Respondent No.1, but the same was not entertained on the ground that there was no provision for Review under the Service Rules. It is aggrieved by the said order dated 11.10.2013 passed by the Respondent No.2, as confirmed by the Respondent No.1 by an order dated 14.08.2014, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition.
2. In response to the notice issued by this Court, the respondents filed common counter-affidavit.
3. Heard Mr.Balan Haridas, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.S.Ravindran, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.S.Bazeer Ahamed appearing for the respondents and also perused the entire material on record. https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 4 of 28 W.P.No.41065 of 2015
4. This Court is conscious of the settled legal position in the matter of scope of interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court cannot act as an appellate authority and can only exercise the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The parameters in this regard are laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of “Union of India and others -vs- P.Gunasekaran” reported in 2015 (2) SCC 610.
5. For proper appreciation of the matter, this Court deems it necessary to extract the charges that are framed against the petitioner and the corresponding statement of allegation, based on which the charges have been framed against the petitioner, which reads as under:-
Sl. Charges Statement of allegation
No
1. The official failed The official ignoring the instructions of the Asst. General to protect the Manager, Region VI, Chennai, contained in letter dated interest of the 28.02.2007 addressed to all Branches of VI to engage the Bank by arranging services of Shri MP Shanmugam, Appraiser for verification of the verification of purity of gold ornaments for credit limits of Rs 50,000/- and purity of gold above, sanctioned Agricultural Gold Loans to https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 5 of 28 W.P.No.41065 of 2015 Sl. Charges Statement of allegation No ornaments by an Shri.N.T.Prasanna and others under Subvention scheme. When authorized suspicion raised by the new incumbent Branch Manager, on appraiser, despite the purity of the ornaments held as security, upon verification instructions issued by another authorized appraiser, Shri.K.Parthasarathy, the by the Asst. ornaments accepted as security were found out to be spurious. General Manager, Though the responsibility of ascertaining the purity of the gold Region VI, lies with the Special Assistant In Charge of Cash, the Official Chennai. Due to has failed to carry out the instructions of the controllers to the failure on the ensure that the ornaments held as security are genuine, in part of the official respect of accounts listed out in Annexure "A".
the Bank has been
placed at an
estimated loss of
Rs 20.38 Lakhs
(Statement of
Allegations item
No.1).
2. The official failed The official failed to comply with the instructions contained in to comply with the Agricultural Banking Codified circulars Volume 1 Chapter 6 instructions regarding sanction page No. 103 to 136, CIRCO/ADV/96/2007-2008 dated of Agriculture 21/07/2007 and sanctioned Agricultural Gold Loans under Gold Loans under subvention subvention scheme in excess of Rs 3.00 Lacs to individual scheme and borrowers and also against spurious ornaments as security and sanctioned loans under the scheme thereby put the Bank into loss. He has sanctioned aggregate in excess of Rs limit of Rs 5, 18,500/- to Shri N T Prasanna and Rs 8,95,000/-
3.00 Lakhs to
individual to Shri S Thilaganathan as per account details listed out as
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 6 of 28
W.P.No.41065 of 2015
Sl. Charges Statement of allegation
No
borrowers and Annexure "B".
also against
spurious
ornaments as
security and
thereby put the
Bank into loss.
(Statement of
Allegations item
No.2).
3. The official i) He sanctioned a gold loan to Shri NT Prasanna for Rs
sanctioned credit 42,000/- on 21/10/2008 under Account No 30533920745 (and facilities to many other loans) when a loan for Rs 1,00,000/- sanctioned to persons by the the same borrower at the same Branch, was running irregular time they are contrary to Bank's laid down instructions. already defaulters A/c No Name Facility DOS Limit O/s IRAC to the Bank 114150 N.T.Prassanna PMRY 13.01.2007 100000 83685 5 contrary to Bank's 61371 extant 305339 N.T.Prassanna AGL 21.10.2008 42000 42500 -
20745 instructions.
(Statement of
Allegations item
No.3). ii) The official also sanctioned many Agricultural gold Loans
to the borrowers as listed below, whose accounts stand classified as NPA with IRAC 4 and above:
A/c No Name Facility DOS Limit O/s IRAC
11415038 Selvam CC/SBF 03.07.200 30000 11807 6
727 M 7
30381298 Mahendra KCC 10.05.200 13000 13000 4
735 nC 8
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Page 7 of 28
W.P.No.41065 of 2015
Sl. Charges Statement of allegation
No
4. The official The official has borrowed and repaid money in his individual
indulged in capacity from Shri S Thilaganathan who is having dealings
financial dealings with the Bank as borrower in violation of Rule 59 (i) of with Bank SBIOSR, 1992 as transpired from the under noted transactions customers by emanated from the accounts of the official.
entering into Date of Amount Debit Account Credit Account
financial Transaction
transactions with 07.02.2009 99,000/- 30379153442 Current S.Thilaganathan Gold
Account of Loan A/c
them violating
Shri.Humasankar 30386814100
State Bank of
09.03.2009 22,000/- 11415038375 Savings S.Thilaganathan A/c
India Officers' Account of 11415021441
Service Rules. Shri.Humasankar
(Statement of
Allegations item
No.4).
6. The charge No.1 levelled against the petitioner is that, the petitioner failed to protect the interest of the Bank by arranging the verification of purity of gold ornaments by an authorized Appraiser, despite the instructions issued by the Assistant General Manager, Region-VI, Chennai, resulting in placing the bank at an estimated loss of Rs.20,38,000/-. The basis for the said charge is that the petitioner ignored the instructions issued by the 'Assistant General Manager' in Letter dated https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 8 of 28 W.P.No.41065 of 2015 28.02.2007 addressed to all the Branches of Region-VI, Chennnai to engage the services of Sri.M.P.Shanmugam, Appraiser, for verification of purity of gold ornaments for a credit limit of Rs.50,000/- and above and sanctioned Agriculture Gold Loans, and when the said gold ornaments were got verified by another authorized Appraiser, Mr.K.Parthasarathy, the ornaments that were accepted as a security were found to be Spurious. Thus, it was alleged that though the responsibility of ascertaining the purity of the gold lies with the Special Assistant, in-charge of cash, the petitioner failed to carry out the necessary instructions of the controllers to ensure that the ornaments held as security are genuine, in respect of the accounts shown in Annexure – A of the charge sheet.
7. Thus, from the above, it is evident that the allegation against the petitioner is that he failed to carryout the instructions of the controllers in connection with verifying the genuineness of the gold ornaments offered as security and thereby, failed to protect the interest of the bank. It is also evident that the primary responsibility of verifying the genuineness of the gold is not on the petitioner, but it is on the Special Assistant, in-charge of cash. It is also clear that https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 9 of 28 W.P.No.41065 of 2015 the verification of purity of the gold ornaments offered for Agriculture Gold Loans for an amount of Rs.50,000/- and above are only required to be got verified by the Appraiser viz., Sri.N.P.Shanmugam. The Letter dated 28.02.2007 of the Assistant General Manager, Region-VI, Chennai, through which the instructions for verifying through the Appraiser viz., Sri.N.P.Shanmugam were issued, is not placed on record either during the enquiry proceedings or before this Court. However, another letter dated 11.05.2007, issued by the Regional Manager was marked as PEx.3, which requires the verification of purity of gold ornaments by Sri.N.P.Shanmugam. In all, 34 gold loans were shown to have been sanctioned by the petitioner, without getting the purity of gold ornaments verified by the Appraiser and the list of the said gold loan accounts were furnished in Annexure-A, annexed to the charge-sheet. Out of the 34 loan accounts, 8 loan accounts are shown to be lying as on the date of charge-sheet and 26 accounts were shown to have been renewed subsequently by the Successor of the petitioner on various dates during the year 2010.
8. As already noted above, the allegation against the petitioner, is not https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 10 of 28 W.P.No.41065 of 2015 following the instructions of the Controller in connection with the verification of purity of the gold ornaments, offered as security for sanction of Agriculture Gold Loans. Admittedly, the said verification by the Appraiser is required in respect of the loans that are sanctioned for Rs.50,000/- and above. If the sanctioned loan amount is less than Rs.50,000/-, the question of verifying the purity of gold ornaments through the Appraiser is not required and it is the Special Assistant, in- charge of cash, who is the competent person to verify the purity of gold ornaments. Out of 8 accounts that are alive, as on the date of charge-sheet, only one account mentioned at Sl.No.7 of the said list was for an amount of Rs.60,000/- and all other 7 loan accounts are for an amount of less than Rs.50,000/-. Further, the loan accounts that were shown at Sl.Nos.1 to 3, out of the alive accounts were accepted to be not the loans that were sanctioned by the petitioner. Thus, out of the remaining 5 loan accounts, it is only in respect of one loan account, the verification through Appraiser is required. Then, coming to the remaining 26 loan accounts, which were subsequently renewed by the Successor in the office of the petitioner, the loan accounts shown at Sl.Nos.5 to 14, 16 to 19 and 26 are all the loans that were sanctioned for amounts less than Rs.50,000/-. Thus, the remaining loan https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 11 of 28 W.P.No.41065 of 2015 accounts that are shown at Sl.Nos.1 to 4, 15, 20 to 25 are the loans that were sanctioned for amounts over and above Rs.50,000/-. Thus, out of the said 26 loan accounts, 15 are the accounts in respect of which the loan amount was less than Rs.50,000/-. This is all evident from the very charge-sheet itself and the documents marked by the prosecution as PEx.5 to PEx.32 would also confirm the same.
9. Further, out of these 26 accounts, the loan account shown at Sl.No.8 is not the loan account that was sanctioned by the petitioner, as the petitioner was relieved from the said Branch on 16.08.2008 itself. Thus, there remains only 11 accounts in respect of which the allegation of not following the instructions in connection with the verification of the purity of gold ornaments through Sri.N.P.Shanmugam, Appraiser has not been followed.
10. In response to the charge levelled against the petitioner, initially through show-cause notice, the petitioner has denied the allegation and submitted that all the formalities that are required to be followed are followed and it is the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 12 of 28 W.P.No.41065 of 2015 responsibility of the Special Assistant, in-charge of cash, to verify the purity of gold ornaments.
11. During the course of enquiry, the petitioner has taken a specific stand that the gold ornaments, accepted as security for the Agriculture Gold Loans were duly got verified by Sri.N.P.Shanmugam, Appraiser and he was also paid the verification charges to a tune of Rs.2,700/- each on two occasions for verifying the purity of gold ornaments i.e., purity and quality verification service and in support of the said contention, Exhibit DEx-7 was marked. Having claimed as such, the petitioner also required the respondent Bank to call for the vouchers under which the said payment was made in favour of the said Appraiser. But, neither the Presenting Officer nor the Enquiry Officer produced the said vouchers on the ground that the said vouchers are not traceable in the Branch. In this connection, it is necessary to note that the allegations that are made against the petitioner are pertaining to the years 2007 and 2008 and whereas, the proceedings that were initiated against the petitioner are only on 31.01.2012, by issuing a show-cause notice and thereafter, by issuing a charge-memo dated 14.09.2012 i.e., almost after https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 13 of 28 W.P.No.41065 of 2015 a lapse of 4 years.
12. In the light of the observations made above on the factual aspects, it is necessary to note the manner in which the Enquiry Officer and the Respondent No.2/ disciplinary authority considered the Charge No.1 levelled against the petitioner. The Enquiry Officer, after having taken note of the submissions made by the Presenting Officer and the delinquent officer, recorded a finding that, out of 800 gold loan accounts, only in respect of 180 accounts, the purity of gold was verified and service charge was paid. The Enquiry Officer also further observed that the documents marked by the Presenting Officer as P.Ex-8, P.Ex-10 to 15, P.Ex-17 to 31 are in respect of the gold loans more than Rs.50,000/- but the same were not verified through the Appraiser. The said finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer is factually incorrect. As a matter of fact, the loans that were sanctioned under the documents P.Ex.13 to 25 are all the loans for an amount less than Rs.50,000/-. The Enquiry Officer, while dealing with the submissions made by the petitioner that the Audit Teams have conducted audit of the branch accounts, but they have not found fault with any such procedural aspects, was discorded by the Enquiry Officer on https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 14 of 28 W.P.No.41065 of 2015 the ground that the auditors would be verifying the branch accounts on a sample basis due to the paucity of time.
13. However, the Enquiry Officer having noticed that the vouchers pertaining to the service charges paid to the Appraiser on 06.06.2007 are not produced, concluded that the Charge No.1, as not proved. However the Respondent No.2/ disciplinary authority differed with the conclusion of the Enquiry Officer on Charge No.1 and communicated its Dissent Note furnishing the reasons as under:-
“Reasons for Disagreement:
i)The CSO has sanctioned several gold loans to Shri. N.T.Prasanna and Ms. N.T.Ramya. The Controller's instruction was to verify the purity of the gold ornaments for loans with limits Rs 50,000/ and above. In the case of Shri.N.T.Prasanna and Ms. NT.Ramya, the aggregate amount of gold loan sanctioned by granting more than one gold loan to each of them is more than Rs.50,000, as listed in the annexures and obviously the purity of the ornaments should have been verified in these cases, which the CSO has not done.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 15 of 28 W.P.No.41065 of 2015
ii). Due to continuous irregularity in all the loans of the same borrower, the subsequent incumbents renewed the loans with the same ornaments, which were later certified as spurious ornaments by the appraiser.
(iii) Though the Gold ornaments are collateral in nature, the collateral clause is applicable only if genuine ornaments are held for the loans. In the cases where the ornaments are found spurious, the security value is to be treated as Nil. In the following accounts the value of security is to be treated as NIL as the ornaments held are spurious.
(a) A/C NO. 30533920745-Gross weight 60.3 Gms for the limit Rs42,000/-
(b) A/C No.30334828884- Gross weight 102.5 Gms for the limit Rs 60,000/-
(c) A/C No.30399110335-Gross weight 29.9 Gms for the limit Rs17,500/-
(d) A/C No.30523557588-Gross weight 19.6 Gms for the limit Rs. 13,500/-
So an apparent loss is evidenced in the cited accounts sanctioned by the CSO without having ensured the purity of the ornaments, as per instructions of the controller.” https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 16 of 28 W.P.No.41065 of 2015
14. From the above, it is noticed that the Respondent No.2 has introduced the theory of taking into consideration the aggregate of different accounts on the ground that the said loans were sanctioned in favour of the very same individuals. That is not the charge that is levelled against the petitioner. The other reason is about the renewal of the loan accounts by the Successor Officers. The same is also nothing to do with the Charge No.1. Finally, the disciplinary authority came to the conclusion that the acts of the petitioner resulted in causing loss in respect of 4 loan accounts. That is also not the charge against the petitioner under the Charge No.1. The Charge No.1 is only in connection with the failure of the petitioner to follow the instructions issued by the controllers in connection with verification of the purity of the gold ornaments, offered as security. Further, the Respondent No.2/ disciplinary authority has also failed to take note of the fact that the Enquiry Officer held the Charge No.1, as not proved on the ground that the relevant vouchers, under which the verification charges were paid to the Appraiser were not produced. Had the said vouchers were produced, it would have come to light as to in respect of which loan accounts, the said verification charges were paid https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 17 of 28 W.P.No.41065 of 2015 to the Appraiser at the relevant point of time. But, the Respondent No.2/ disciplinary authority failed to give any reason for not producing the said vouchers nor furnished any reasons to find fault with the conclusions arrived at by the Enquiry Officer, but proceeded to differ with the conclusion of the Enquiry Officer, by assigning the reasons alien to the charge. Thereafter, though the petitioner raised his objection in an elaborate manner, the disciplinary authority confirmed its view on Charge No.1, without considering the objections.
15. In the considered view of this Court, though there appears to be negligence on the part of the petitioner in sanctioning multiple gold loans in favour of different individuals within a short span of time and the allegation that the gold ornaments offered by the said individuals are found to be spurious in nature, but for want of bringing home the charge levelled against the petitioner and also due to failure of the respondent Bank to furnish the documents, especially the vouchers relating to payment of purity verification charges etc., as required by the petitioner and also the delay in initiation of the disciplinary proceedings i.e., more than four years and the conclusions recorded by the Enquiry Officer, and factually incorrect https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 18 of 28 W.P.No.41065 of 2015 statements, have driven this Court to conclude that the findings of the Enquiry Officer on Charge No.1 is required to be upheld, while finding fault with the reasons furnished by the disciplinary authority for deviating with the view of the Enquiry Officer.
16. In the result, the findings of the disciplinary authority, as confirmed by the appellate authority holding that Charge No.1 levelled against the petitioner as proved cannot be sustained.
17. Then, coming to Charge No.2, which pertains to sanction of loans in excess of Rs.3,00,000/- to two individual borrowers, as shown in Annexure-III annexed with charge-memo are concerned, the said charge was held as proved by the Enquiry Officer as well as the disciplinary authority. The same, even if held as proved, the same may not warrant punishment of dismissal from service.
18. Then coming to the Charge No.3, the same pertains to sanction of credit facilities to persons, who are defaulters to the Bank, contrary to the Bank’s https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 19 of 28 W.P.No.41065 of 2015 instructions. In support of the said charge, as seen from the statement of allegation, it contains two parts.
18.1. The first part is in connection with the sanction of gold loans to one N.T.Prasanna for Rs.42,000/- on 21.10.2008 when a loan for Rs.1,00,000 sanctioned to the same borrower at the same Branch was running irregular. The said loan of Rs.42,000/- was shown to have been sanctioned on 21.10.2008. But, admittedly the petitioner was relieved from the Branch in question on 16.08.2008 itself, as is evident from DEx-2. Therefore, the Enquiry Officer has rightly not made any reference to Part No.1 of Charge No.3.
18.2. Then, coming to the part 2 of Charge No.3, the petitioner was shown to have sanctioned loans in favour of two individuals viz., Sri.M.Selvam and Sri.C.Mahendran, though they were already found to be defaulters of the Bank. However, there was no material that is placed in respect of the loans sanctioned in favour of Sri.C.Mahendran and the only material placed was in respect of one Mr.M.Selvam. The findings that are recorded by the Enquiry Officer and the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 20 of 28 W.P.No.41065 of 2015 Disciplinary Authority in connection with this part of the charge also does not require interference by this Court, as the same were sufficiently substantiated by the Bank.
19. Then, coming to the Charge No.4, the same pertains to having financial dealings with the customers of the Bank by entering into financial transactions with them, thereby violating the State Bank of India Officers' Service Rules, 1992. In the statement of allegation, it was stated that the petitioner had financial transaction with one S.Thilaganathan, who had gold loan accounts with the Branch in question. On 07.02.2009 and 09.03.2009, on which date the petitioner has remitted an amount of Rs.99,000/- and Rs.22,000/- respectively to the account of the said S.Thilaganathan. The documents that are placed in support of the charge viz., PEx.61 to 65 would only show that the petitioner has paid the above said amounts to the said S.Thilaganathan. But, there was no financial transaction during the period the petitioner was worked as Branch Manager in the Melsanankuppam Branch. Even if there is any such transaction, in the absence of any further allegation of attributing any ill-intention or undue benefit that is derived https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 21 of 28 W.P.No.41065 of 2015 by the petitioner, the said charge, even if held as proved, the same is only trivial in nature.
20. In the light of the above conclusions arrived at by this Court, especially the findings recorded on Charge No.1, even if the charges framed against the petitioner under Charge Nos.2 to 4 are held as proved also, in the considered view of this Court, the punishment of removal from service imposed on the petitioner is shockingly disproportionate. It is also relevant to note that there is no allegation against the petitioner of deliberately acting either because of any ill- motive or for any extraneous consideration. All the allegations are only of procedural violations.
21. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on various decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of “State of Uttar https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 22 of 28 W.P.No.41065 of 2015 Pradesh and others -vs- Saroj Kumar Sinha” reported in (2010) 2 SCC 772, “Yoginath D.Bage -vs- State of Maharashtra and another” reported in (1999) 7 SCC 739, “State Bank of India and others -vs- K.P.Narayan Kutty” reported in (2003) 2 SCC 449, “State Bank of India and others -vs- Arvind K.Shukla” reported in (2004) 13 SCC 797 and “M.Mohandass -vs- State Bank of India” reported in (2011) SCC OnLine Mad 2542, in connection with the Dissent Note of the Respondent No.2/ disciplinary authority differing with the view of the Enquiry Officer on Charge No.1, have no relevancy to the case on hand, as the disciplinary authority while furnishing its Dissent Note has not recorded any conclusive finding and on mere failure to call the reasons furnished for differing as tentative in nature, would not vitiate the same.
22. Then, coming to the decisions relied upon by Thiru.S.Ravindran, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent Bank on the proposition that acting beyond the authority of an officer working in a Bank is a major misconduct citing the case of “Mihir Kumar Hazara Choudhury -vs- Life Insurance Corporation and others” reported in (2017) 9 SCC 404 has no relevancy, as there https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 23 of 28 W.P.No.41065 of 2015 is no charge against the petitioner of exceeding his authority in any manner. The decision in the case of “State Bank of India and others -vs- Narendra Kumar Pandey” reported in (2013) 2 SCC 740 and in the case of “Tara Chand Vyas -vs- Chairman and Disciplinary Authority and others” reported in (1997) 4 SCC 565 with regard to the manner in which the charges are required to be proved, is concerned, there is no quarrel with the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. This court also has not agreed with the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was no evidence in support of the charges levelled against the petitioner. It is settled proposition that the charges can be proved basing upon oral and documentary evidence and basing upon both oral or documentary evidence. If the documents that are placed on record are not disputed, there is no necessity of examining any witness to prove such documents.
23. The other decision in the case of “Boloram Bordolai -vs- Lakhimi Gaolia Bank and others” reported in (2021) 3 SCC 806 is concerned, that is a case where the Hon'ble Apex Court came to the conclusion that the delinquent officer https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 24 of 28 W.P.No.41065 of 2015 therein has admitted the charges levelled against him, and rest of the findings are basing upon the facts of the said case. In the instant case, as already observed above, all the charges that are levelled against the petitioner, which are held to be proved are only procedural lapses and admittedly, there is no allegation of petitioner in any way acting for his personal gain or misappropriation of any Bank funds. Hence, the said decision also has no relevancy to the case on hand.
24. In the circumstances, the impugned order dated 11.10.2013 passed by the Respondent No.2, as confirmed by the first respondent through order dated 14.08.2014 cannot be sustained and accordingly, both the orders are hereby set aside, to the extent of holding Charge No.1 as proved and imposing the punishment of dismissal from service, and the matter is remanded back to the Respondent No.2 for imposing the appropriate punishment commensurate with the charges proved against the petitioner in the light the findings recorded herein above, which shall not be the one having the effect of discontinuing the petitioner from the services of the Bank.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 25 of 28 W.P.No.41065 of 2015
25. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.
30.10.2024 skr Index : Yes / No Speaking order / Non-speaking order Neutral Citation : Yes / No To
1. Chief General Manager (Appellate Authority), State Bank of India, HR Department, Local Head Office, Circle Top House, No.16, College Lane, Chennai – 600 006.
2. General Manager (Network 2), Disciplinary Authority, State Bank of India, Local Head Office Floor No.7, Circle Top House, No.16, College Lane, Chennai – 600 006.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 26 of 28 W.P.No.41065 of 2015 MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR, J.
skr Pre-Delivery Order made in W.P.No.41065 of 2015 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 27 of 28 W.P.No.41065 of 2015 30.10.2024 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 28 of 28