NDLI: State Bank of India Vs. A.g.d. Reddy

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Service Law – Misconduct
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2 Referred Case 3
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	Issue for consideration: Whether the Division Bench and the SingleJudge of the High Court were justifi ed in quashing the order passed by theAppointing Authority imposing a punishment of “reduction in basic pay tothe lowest stage in Scale-I” as envisaged under Rule 49 (e) of the State Bankof India (Supervising Staff ) Service Rules and treating the period spent bythe delinquent offi cer under suspension from 18.08.1990 till the date of hisreinstatement as suspension only.Service Law – Misconduct – Commission of certain acts ofmisconduct by the employee while working as Field Offi cer of theBank – Disciplinary proceedings – Appointing Authority imposedpunishment of reduction in basic pay to the lowest stage in Scale-Iand treated the period spent by the delinquent officer undersuspension till the date of his reinstatement as suspension only –Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court quashed theorder – Correctness:Held: Both the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Courterred in interfering with the fi ndings of the Enquiry Offi cer, the decision ofthe Disciplinary Authority, and the order of the Appointing Authority andthe Appellate Authority – Thus, the order of the Single Judge and that of theDivision Bench set aside – State Bank of India (Supervising Staff ) ServiceRules – r. 49 (e).[Para 41]Service Law – Disciplinary proceeding – Onus of proof: Held: In a disciplinary proceeding, the burden of proof depends uponthe nature of the charge and the nature of the explanation put forward bythe employee – In a given case, the burden may be shifted to the employeedepending upon the explanation – On facts, the specifi c charge was withregard to a series of named units, periodical inspections were not carriedout – It was after the production of the inspection register that the defencerepresentative of the employee stated, that they would respond after goingthrough the said documents – No response was forthcoming – Neither fromthe records nor at the hearing it was demonstrated as to how the charge offailure to conduct the inspection was countered by the employee – Recordssought being made available, the onus did shift to the employee to showthat the charge was untenable – As regards the failure to conduct periodicalinspection, it cannot be said that the fi nding of the Enquiry Offi cer is on amis-reading of the evidence or that the records of the inspection of unitswere part of the records that could be possibly misplaced or that a fi ndingwas based on some stray sentence and personal knowledge was importedby the Enquiry Offi cer de hors the record. [Paras 22-25]Service Law – Disciplinary proceedings – Scope of judicial review:Held: Scope of judicial review against a departmental enquiryproceeding is very limited – It is not in the nature of an appeal and a reviewon merits of the decision is not permissible – Scope of the enquiry is toexamine whether the decision-making process is legitimate and to ensurethat the fi ndings are not bereft of any evidence – If the records reveal that thefi ndings are based on some evidence, it is not the function of the court in ajudicial review to re-appreciate the same and arrive at an independent fi ndingon the evidence – On facts, it could not be said that the Enquiry Report,the fi ndings of the Disciplinary Authority and the order of the AppointingAuthority are based on no evidence or are perverse – Even if the reportinsofar as the aspect of non-submission of control form, the transgressionof the area of operation and non-declaration of the immovable property andcertain other charges is avoided, the order of penalty can be sustained –Aspects of failure to conduct periodic inspection and the negligence in notstipulating the taking of immovable property as collateral security in spiteof the party off ering it, constrains to conclude that there was material onrecord for the appellant to pass the order of penalty – Orders of the Single Judge and the Division Bench not sustainable for transgressing the limits ofjudicial review in setting aside the enquiry proceedings and the punishmentimposed. [Paras 32, 33, 36 and 37]Service Law – Penalty – Severability of charges – Interferencewith the order of penalty:Held: If in a disciplinary proceeding, the order of penalty can beimposed on the charges proved and the punishment imposed is lawfullysustainable on those charges, it is not for the Court to consider whetherthose grounds alone would have weighed with the authority in imposingthe punishment – Unless punishment imposed is only co-relatable to anyof those charges found not proved, the penalty cannot be set aside – Onfacts, the punishment can be sustained even if the charges held not provedare severed – Test is not of loss having being resulted or profi t havingbeen made, the test is whether the delinquent employee, has observed theprescribed norms of the Bank – Penalty imposed is “reduction in basic payto the lowest stage in Scale-I” and further, to treat the period spent by thedelinquent offi cer as under suspension – Since the charge of not conductingperiodical inspection and the failure to complete the formalities for creatingequitable mortgage are supported by evidence, the penalty as imposed isnot disproportionate so as to shock the conscience of the Court – Penaltyas imposed by the Appointing Authority and as confi rmed by the AppellateAuthority maintained. [Para 41]
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vishishtha Bhargava
Neutral Citation	2023 INSC 766
Petitioner	State Bank Of India
Respondent	A.g.d. Reddy
SCR	[2023] 11 S.C.R. 652
Judgement Date	2023-08-24
Case Number	11196

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

State Bank of India Vs. A.g.d. Reddy

Please Log-in to view this content

State Bank of India and Ors. Vs. T.j. Paul

Canara Bank Vs. V.k. Awasthy

Sadhna Chaudhary Vs. State of U.p. & Anr.

Man Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.

Shobha Sinha Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.

State Bank of India Vs. K.c. Tharakan and Ors.

The General Manager (p) Punjab & Sino Bank & Ors. Vs. Daya Singh

The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. Vs. Rajit Singh

P.c. Joshi Vs. State of U.p. and Ors.

State Bank of India Vs. A.g.d. Reddy

State Bank of India Vs. A.g.d. Reddy

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

State Bank of India and Ors. Vs. T.j. Paul

Canara Bank Vs. V.k. Awasthy

Sadhna Chaudhary Vs. State of U.p. & Anr.

Man Singh Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.

Shobha Sinha Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.

State Bank of India Vs. K.c. Tharakan and Ors.

The General Manager (p) Punjab & Sino Bank & Ors. Vs. Daya Singh

The State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. Vs. Rajit Singh

P.c. Joshi Vs. State of U.p. and Ors.

State Bank of India Vs. A.g.d. Reddy