K.S.S.N. Sarma vs State Bank of India, Bombay and others

Goda Raghuram, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 3-8-1998 dismissing Writ Petition No. 15620 of 1998. The parties are referred to as arrayed in the writ petition.

The writ petitioner was an officer of the State Bank of India. While working as Branch Manager at Basanthnagar Branch he was chargesheeted for irregularities reported to have been committed by him in the sanctioning and conduct of advances and for demanding and accepting illegal gratification from the borrowers during his service at the said Branch. Pursuant to an inquiry, the inquiring officer submitted an inquiry report holding the petitioner guilty of the charges alleged except Charge No. 1 (a) and 1(c). A copy of the report having been communicated to the petitioner, he submitted his reply thereto. The disciplinary authority after obtaining the approval of the Chief General Manger, who was the appointing authority, passed final orders on 2-9-1992 imposing the penalty of "removal from service" on the petitioner. The disciplinary authority agreed with the inquiring authority that Charge 1(a) was not proved, but differed with him on the aspect of Charge No.1(c). On an independent appreciation of the evidence on record, the disciplinary authority, disagreeing with the inquiring authority, came to the conclusion that Charge No.1(c) is also proved against the petitioner and consequently issued the proceedings dated 2-9-1992 imposing the penalty referred to above.

Against the orders dated 2-9-1992, the petitioner submitted an appeal and the appellate authority by orders dated 2-6-1993 dismissed the appeal. A review petition submitted by the petitioner to the Reviewing Committee-II was also dismissed by the orders dated 27-6-1997. Assailing the above proceedings the writ petition was filed.

Considering the record of the case and contentions of the parties, the learned single Judge found no error in the disciplinary proceedings warranting interference within the contours of judicial review and dismissed the writ petition.

At the hearing of the appeal the only question canvassed by the learned Counsel for the appellant Mr. V. Srinivas, is that inasmuch as the disciplinary authority differed with the conclusions arrived at by the inquiry authority in respect of Charge No.1(c), the order of imposition of penalty is unsustainable since no opportunity of representation has been afforded to the charged employee before the conclusion of the disciplinary authority differing from the conclusion arrived at by the inquiring authority. Learned Counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank and Others Vs. Sh. Kunj Behari Misra, , in support of this contention. In the said decision, after an analysis of the general principles and earlier authorities on this aspect of the matter, the Supreme Court declared the law to the effect that whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiring 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 to the delinquent officer so as to enable him an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. This principle has been enunciated as an emanation of the principles of natural justice and held to be an integral part of procedural due process. Conformity with the said binding principle of law would invalidate the finding in respect of Charge No.1(c). "

On such invalidation, the matter would normally require to be remanded to the disciplinary authority so as to enable him to afford the charged employee an opportunity as declared in the decision of the Supreme Court supra. Sri K. Srinivasa Murty, learned standing Counsel for the respondent-Bank, however, contends, on instructions, that the respondent-Bank does not seek to pursue the matter in respect of Charge No.1(c) afresh and that the other charges found proved are grave enough to sustain the penalty of removal from service. Learned Counsel for the appellant, however, contends that the satisfaction that the charges held proved warrant the penalty of removal imposed, is a satisfaction that can only be arrived at by the employer and that this satisfaction encompasses a spectrum of administrative discretion, value judgment and choices which can only be arrived at by the employer and in the view of the matter the issue should be remanded to the disciplinary authority for a fresh appreciation to determine the appropriate penalty to be imposed on the charges held proved even after excision the finding inrespect of Charge No.1(c). Sri K. Srinivasa Murly on the other hand contended that this exercise can be performed by the appellate authority and the matter need not be remanded to the disciplinary authority. Learned Counsel for the appellant agreed to this course of action.

We accordingly direct the appropriate appellate authority in accordance with law and extant disciplinary and appeal regulations of the State Bank of India, to consider the disciplinary proceedings against the appellant for imposition of appropriate penalty in regard to the charges held proved. In arriving at the assessment of the appropriate penalty, the finding in respect of Charge No.1(c), shall be ignored in he light of the invalidation of the said finding by us herein. This exercise shall be carried out by the appellate authority within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The rights, if any, of the appellant shall depend on the out come of the decision arrived at by the appellate authority as directed above. The orders of the learned single Judge are modified to the extent indicated above. The appeal is disposed of with the above directions, without costs.