On March 4, 2025, Patna High Court's Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice (ACJ) Ashutosh Kumar and Justice Partha Sarthy concluded that "the order of the learned Single Judge also cannot be sustained and is set aside. The appeal is allowed with all consequential benefits with effect from the date of his first dismissal (i.e. 6.2.2015) which shall be paid to the appellant within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order." in Rakesh Roshan Gupta vs.The Chairman-cum- Managing Director, State Bank of India Mumbai (2025). The 22-page long judgement was authored by Justice Partha Sarthy. Justice Kumar, the ACJ agreed with it.
Justice Partha Sarthy wrote:"The appellate authority also erred in not considering the points raised by the appellant in the appeal filed and dealt with herein above and having rejected the appeal."
In his 9-page long judgement dated February 23, 2024, Dr. Anshuman, the Single Judge of the High Court had concluded: "there is no deficiency in passing the order in the light of Rule 63(3) (iii) the State Bank of India Officers’ Service Rules, 1992. In the light of the judgment quoted by the parties, the scope of judicial review is very limited. This Court is not sitting in appeal and therefore restrain himself to scrutinize the decision as like that of the appellate Court and in this view of the matter, this Court is of firm view that there is no merit in this application. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed."
Notably, the Counsel for the Bank had also relied on the same Rule on which petitioner relied in his favour, i.e., Rule 68(3)(iii) of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules, 1992, on which the petitioner is relying. The only difference is that the petitioner is construing the said Rule in his favour whereas Bank is construing the Rule in its favour.
The contents of the Rule in question reads:
“68(3)(iii). If the Disciplinary Authority, having regard to its findings on all or any of the articles of charge, is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in Rule 67 should be imposed on the officer, it shall, notwithstanding anything contained in subrule (4), make an order imposing such penalty. Provided that where the Disciplinary Authority is of the opinion that the penalty to be imposed is any of the penalties specified in clauses (e), (f), (g), (h), (i) & (j) of Rule 67 and if it is lower in rank to the Appointing Authority in respect of the category of officers to which the officer belongs, i shall submit to the Appointing Authority its recommendations regarding the penalty that may be imposed. Records of the enquiry specified in clause (xxi)(b) of sub rule (2), shall also be submitted to the Appointing Authority in respect of penalties to be imposed under clauses (f), (g), (h), (i) & (j) of Rule 67. The Appointing Authority shall make an order imposing such penalty as it consider in its opinion appropriate.”
In his judgement, Dr. Anshuman had observed: "After going through the provisions of rule, it transpires to this Court that upon reading main paragraph without proviso then it shall construe in favour of the petitioner but upon reading this paragraph i.e., main provision as well as the proviso, then it shall construe in favour of the Bank. It is the fundamental rule of interpretation that whenever interpretation has to take place the interpretation shall always and always be made after going through all the provisions as a whole and not as a part... "
The appellant had filed the appeal against the judgment dated February 23, 2024 passed in CWJC no.1323 of 2020, wherein the Single Judge was had dismissed the writ application. The appellant had filed the writ application seeking quashing of the order of punishment dated June 7, 2019, whereby the punishment of reduction to the post of Award Staff fixing the basic pay as Rs.21,240/- per month was imposed on the appellant with a further order that the period of suspension would be treated not on-duty. The appellant had also prayed for quashing the appellate order dated November 20, 2019.
The appellant was posted as the Assistant Branch Manager in the Munger Branch of the State Bank of India. An F.I.R. 341 of 2013 was registered against him on July 9, 2013 for offence under sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code in Saharsa Sadar. On investigation final form was submitted and the same was accepted by the Court below on February 24, 2016. With the acceptance of the final form, the criminal case stood closed. The petitioner was proceeded against in a disciplinary proceeding in terms of Rule 68(1) of the State Bank of India Officers’ Service Rules, 1992. The departmental proceeding started and the Enquiry Officer submitted an enquiry report dated May 6, 2014, the summary of the report being that the allegation no. 1 was not proved while allegation nos. 2 and 3 were found to be proved.
The charges having been partly proved, the disciplinary authority along with the letter dated May 12, 2014 served a copy of the enquiry report on the appellant observing that they did not agree with the findings of the enquiring authority with respect to the allegation no.1. Observing that the disciplinary authority/appointing authority will take the final decision after examining the enquiry report, the appellant was given liberty to file his representation within a period seven days. The appellant submitted his reply on which the appointing authority by order contained in letter dated February 6, 2015 imposed the penalty of dismissal on the appellant.
The order of dismissal was challenged by the appellant in this Court in CWJC no. 4163 of 2015 which was withdrawn by order dated March 19, 2015. A review application being Civil Review no. 106 of 2015 preferred by the State Bank of India against the order dated March 19, 2015 passed in the writ application was dismissed imposing a cost of Rs. 25,000/- on the Bank.
The appellant preferred a statutory appeal which was rejected by the appellate authority on September 18, 2015. The appellant challenged the order of the appellate authority in CWJC no. 19743 of 2015 which was allowed by order dated April 23, 2018. The learned Single Judge was pleased to set aside the order of both the disciplinary authority as also the appellate authority and further directed for reinstatement of the appellant with all consequential benefits, however, observing that it would be open for the authorities to proceed in the matter expeditiously from the stage of the second show-cause notice.
On the appellant having filed a representation dated May 4, 2018, the Bank ordered for reinstatement of the appellant on July 17, 2018. A second show-cause notice was served by the Bank on the appellant to which he filed his reply. The appellant received a communication dated February 21, 2019 from the appointing authority mentioning therein the reason for the disagreement with the findings of the enquiring authority and the disciplinary authority in respect of allegation no.1 contained in the charge-sheet. The appellant submitted his reply on March 12, 2019. The appellant received a letter dated June 1, 2019 from the appointing authority intimating him that after having considered the records of the enquiry, it was proposed to impose the major penalty of removal from the Bank on the appellant and as such he was given liberty to appear in the office of the appointing authority and to make submissions as to why the proposed penalty be not imposed on him. The appellant filed his reply on June 6, 2019 whereafter, the respondent authorities came out with an order contained in letter dated June 7, 2019 imposing the penalty of “Reduction to the post of Award Staff and fixing of basic pay at Rs.21,240/- p.m.” in terms of Rule 67(g) and 67(f) of the Rules of 1992 and further that the period of suspension was to be treated as not on duty.
The appeal preferred by the appellant was rejected by the appellate authority by order dated November 21, 2019. The appellant challenged both the order of punishment dated June 7, 2019 passed by the appointing authority as also the order rejecting the appeal dated November 20, 2019 by the appellate authority by filing CWJC no. 1323 of 2020. The same having been dismissed by the Single Judge, the instant appeal was preferred.
The senior Counsel appearing for the appellant had submitted that the Single Judge has not appreciated the allegations and the explanation furnished by the appellant. As per the enquiry report, the allegation no. 1 which related to the appellant’s unauthorisedly passing a voucher for Rs.50,000/- for debit of the amount of Parmeshwari Thakur on March 15, 2013 and crediting the same in his account on March 25, 2013 is concerned, the same was not proved. The orders of appointing authority as also the appellate authority were non speaking and they had not considered the defence of the appellant nor the statement of Parmeshwari Thakur made before the Judicial Magistrate. It was submitted that no witness had been produced by the Department for proving the charges against the appellant and the same was in teeth of the judgments of the Supreme Court. Senior counsel in support of his contentions relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank [(2009) 2 SCC 570], Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) & Ors.vs. Ajai Kumar Srivastava [(2021) 2 SCC 612] and Satyendra Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. [2024 SCC Online SC 3325].
Senior counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that pursuant to order dated April 23, 2018 passed in CWJC no.19743 of 2015, whereby having quashed the orders, while directing for reinstatement of the appellant with all consequential benefits, liberty was granted to the authorities to proceed in the matter from the stage of second show-cause. Though a notice was given by the disciplinary authority, the matter was referred to the appointing authority by letter dated February 21, 2019 issued a show-cause notice to the appellant differing with the enquiry report and on receipt of the appellant’s reply proceeded to pass the order of punishment on June 7, 2019 which was against Rule 68.3 (iii) of the Rules of 1992.
The seven other respondents in the case were: Appellate Authority-cum-Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Patna. Appointing Authority -cum- General Manager, State Bank of Indian, Patna, Deputy General Manager (Business and Operation), State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Purnea, Assistant General Manager (Domestic Enquiry), State Bank of India, Patna, Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Main Branch, Siwan, Manager (Vigilance), State Bank of India, Patna and Kumar Gaurav, Son of Ravindra Prasad, Erstwhile Branch Manager, Agwanpur Branch, Saharsa.
The Division Bench observed: "it was for the disciplinary authority to record its opinion with respect to its disagreement with the findings of the enquiring authority and not refer the matter to the appointing authority as has been done in the instant case. The Court finds substance in the submissions made on behalf of the appellant."
It also observed that "strict rules of evidence do not apply to a departmental proceeding, nevertheless, the charges levelled are required to be proved by leading evidence. Depending on the facts of the case, the prosecution is required to prove the charges levelled with the support of documentary evidence together with oral evidence being led to mark the document as an exhibit, to prove the same as also the contents thereof."
In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Roop Singh Negi case S and Satyendra Singh case, no oral evidence having been led, it was a case of no evidence and thus, the consequential order of punishment cannot be sustained.
The appeal against the judgement of the Division Bench of the High Court is likely to reach Supreme Court for final adjudication but it is apparent that there is little scope of relief from there.
No comments:
Post a Comment