State Bank of India & Anr. vs K.S. Vishwanath

HELD: 1.1 In the departmental enquiry against the delinquent officer by the disciplinary authority it was alleged that he got prepared a set of fraudulent cash remittance document and by producing the same at Peenya Industrial Estate Branch, Bangalore made the officials believe them to be genuine and part with Rs.10 Lacs as cash remittance to SSI Peenya II Stage Branch and after receiving the same cash he failed to account for the same in the books of SSI Peenya II Stage Branch. To prove the said charge the management as such examined 9 witnesses and produced 41 documents. The said charge has been held to be proved by the Enquiry Officer on appreciation of the entire evidence on record including the deposition of the management witnesses examined as PW1 to PW7. On considering the enquiry report and the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer it appears that the management has been able to establish and prove the complicity of the delinquent officer and has been successful in proving that the delinquent officer prepared the fraudulent letter (by examining PW7) who at the letter requesting for remittance resembles the style/writing of the delinquent officer (PW1); it was the respondent–delinquent officer who had come with one more person whom he introduced as a new cashier and the delinquent officer submitted the voucher and that the remittance/cash was given to him inside the vault (by examining PW2 and PW3); the Branch Manager confirmed that the letter allegedly bearing his signature seeking remittance of Rs.10 lakhs was not signed by him (PW4); and that it was the respondent–delinquent officer who went to the Branch with another person for cash remittance and that the cash remittance was paid to the respondent-delinquent officer. [Para 7][152-E-H; 153-A-C]

1.2 It can be seen that the management has been able to prove the complete chain of events which led to the conclusion that it was the delinquent officer who prepared the false letter; he went to the Branch for withdrawing the cash along with the fraudulent letter; that it was he who took the cash/remittance of Rs.10 lakhs and thereafter the said amount was not deposited with the SSI Peenya II Stage Branch. [Para 7.1][153-E]

1.3 From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court it appears that the High Court dealt with and considered the writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution challenging the decision of the Bank/Management dismissing the delinquent officer as if the High Court was exercising the powers of the appellate authority. The High Court committed a grave error in interfering with the order passed by the disciplinary authority dismissing the respondent-delinquent officer from service. The High Court erred in reappreciating the entire evidence on record and thereafter interfering with the findings of fact recorded by the Enquiry Officer and accepted by the disciplinary authority. By interfering with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer which as such were on appreciation of evidence on record, the order passed by the High Court suffers from patent illegality. From the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, it cannot be said that there was no evidence at all which may reasonably support the conclusion that the Delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. [Para 7.2, 8][153-F-G; 160-D-F]

1.4 The submission on behalf of the respondent-delinquent officer that as he has been acquitted in a criminal court and therefore, he cannot be held guilty in a disciplinary proceeding is concerned, cannot be accepted. From the judgment and order passed by the criminal court it appears that he has been given the benefit of doubt. The fact that the criminal court acquitted the respondent by giving him the benefit of doubt, would not in any way render a completed disciplinary proceeding invalid nor affect the validity of the finding of guilt or consequential punishment. The standard of proof required in criminal proceedings being different from the standard of proof required in departmental enquiries, the same charges and evidence may lead to different results in the two proceedings, that is, finding of guilt in departmental proceedings and an acquittal by giving benefit of doubt in the criminal proceedings. [Para 9][160-F-H; 161-A]

1.5 Even the modus operandi adopted by the delinquent officer also deserves the consideration. As per the evidence on record, he went along with the false and fabricated document along with another person and he introduced that person as a new cashier and he ensured that the voucher was not signed by him but signed by the other person who was introduced by him as a new cashier. Therefore, he saw to it that there is no evidence on record that he actually received the money. This shows the criminal mind/conduct on the part of the delinquent officer. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case it cannot be said that the disciplinary authority/competent authority/management had committed any error in dismissing the respondent-delinquent officer from service. [Para 10][161-C-E] Nand Kishore Prasad v. State of Bihar & Others AIR 1978 SC 1277 : [1978] 3 SCR 708 – relied on.

Karnataka v. N. Ganga Raj (2020) 3 SCC 423; Rajinder Kumar Kindra v. Delhi Administration (1984) 4 SCC

635 : [1985] 1 SCR 866 – referred to.