Case Details State Bank of India vs A.G.D. Reddy

Service Law – Disciplinary proceeding – Onus of proof: Held: In a disciplinary proceeding, the burden of proof depends upon the nature of the charge and the nature of the explanation put forward by the employee – In a given case, the burden may be shifted to the employee depending upon the explanation – On facts, the specific charge was with regard to a series of named units, periodical inspections were not carried out – It was after the production of the inspection register that the defence representative of the employee stated, that they would respond after going through the said documents – No response was forthcoming – Neither from the records nor at the hearing it was demonstrated as to how the charge of failure to conduct the inspection was countered by the employee – Records sought being made available, the onus did shift to the employee to show that the charge was untenable – As regards the failure to conduct periodical inspection, it cannot be said that the finding of the Enquiry Officer is on a mis-reading of the evidence or that the records of the inspection of units were part of the records that could be possibly misplaced or that a finding was based on some stray sentence and personal knowledge was imported by the Enquiry Officer de hors the record. [Paras 22-25] Service Law – Disciplinary proceedings – Scope of judicial review: Held: Scope of judicial review against a departmental enquiry proceeding is very limited – It is not in the nature of an appeal and a review on merits of the decision is not permissible – Scope of the enquiry is to examine whether the decision-making process is legitimate and to ensure that the findings are not bereft of any evidence – If the records reveal that the findings are based on some evidence, it is not the function of the court in a judicial review to re-appreciate the same and arrive at an independent finding on the evidence – On facts, it could not be said that the Enquiry Report, the findings of the Disciplinary Authority and the order of the Appointing Authority are based on no evidence or are perverse – Even if the report insofar as the aspect of non-submission of control form, the transgression of the area of operation and non-declaration of the immovable property and certain other charges is avoided, the order of penalty can be sustained – Aspects of failure to conduct periodic inspection and the negligence in not stipulating the taking of immovable property as collateral security in spite of the party offering it, constrains to conclude that there was material on record for the appellant to pass the order of penalty – Orders of the Single Judge and the Division Bench not sustainable for transgressing the limits of judicial review in setting aside the enquiry proceedings and the punishment imposed. [Paras 32, 33, 36 and 37]

Service Law – Penalty – Severability of charges – Interference with the order of penalty:

Held: If in a disciplinary proceeding, the order of penalty can be imposed on the charges proved and the punishment imposed is lawfully sustainable on those charges, it is not for the Court to consider whether those grounds alone would have weighed with the authority in imposing the punishment – Unless punishment imposed is only co-relatable to any of those charges found not proved, the penalty cannot be set aside – On facts, the punishment can be sustained even if the charges held not proved are severed – Test is not of loss having being resulted or profit having been made, the test is whether the delinquent employee, has observed the prescribed norms of the Bank – Penalty imposed is “reduction in basic pay to the lowest stage in Scale-I” and further, to treat the period spent by the delinquent officer as under suspension – Since the charge of not conducting periodical inspection and the failure to complete the formalities for creating equitable mortgage are supported by evidence, the penalty as imposed is not disproportionate so as to shock the conscience of the Court – Penalty as imposed by the Appointing Authority and as confirmed by the Appellate Authority maintained. [Para 41]

LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES

State of Orissa v. Bidyabhushan Mohapatra [1963] 1 Suppl. SCR 648; Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) and Others. v. Ajai Kumar Srivastava (2021) 2 SCC 612 – relied on.

Nand Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar and Others (1978) 3 SCC 366 : [1978] 3 SCR 708; Anil Kumar v. Presiding Officer and Others (1985) 3 SCC 378 – distinguished.

Orissa Mining Corporation and Another v. Ananda Chandra Prusty (1996) 11 SCC 600 : [1996] 8 Suppl. SCR 433; State Bank of India v. Ram Lal Bhaskar and Another (2011) 10 SCC 249 : [2011] 12 SCR 1036; State of A.P. v. S. Sree Rama Rao AIR 1963 SC 1723 : [1964] SCR 25; Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager and Others vs. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik, (1996) 9 SCC 69:[1996] 1 Suppl. SCR 314 – referred to. OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED

ORDER AND APPEARANCES