Created byFuzzy Cloud

Legislation

State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules

6 Supreme Court judgments cite this Act.

STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS.versusC.K. KARUNAKARAN

2021 INSC 58230 September 2021Appeal(s) allowed

C.K. Karunakar, an employee of State Bank of India, was interviewed for promotion in 1984. While the promotion process was pending, disciplinary proceedings were initiated, leading to a charge‑sheet and a penalty of censure in 1987, with the appeal dismissed in 1988. The promoting authority had placed his promotion rec

STATE BANK OF INDIAversusA.G.D. REDDY

2023 INSC 76624 August 2023Appeal(s) allowed

The State Bank of India (SBI) disciplined its field officer A.G.D. Reddy for alleged misconduct, including failure to conduct periodical inspections and not completing formalities for an equitable mortgage, and imposed a penalty of reduction in basic pay to the lowest stage in Scale‑I under Rule 49(e) of the SBI (Super

STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS.versusSAMARENDRA KISHORE ENDOW AND ANR.

1994 INSC 1418 January 1994Appeal(s) allowed

The respondent, a Branch Manager of State Bank of India, claimed reimbursement for moving his household goods after a transfer and was charged with five offences, including false claims and irregular loan disbursement. An enquiry officer found all charges proved on documentary evidence, and the disciplinary authority i

G H STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS.versusMOHAMMAD BADRUDDIN

2019 INSC 76416 July 2019Disposed off

The State Bank of India (SBI) conducted a departmental inquiry against Mohammad Badruddin on five charges, finding only charge No. 4 proved. The Disciplinary Authority, disagreeing with the Inquiry Officer on charges 1 and 5, imposed removal from service, while an earlier appellate authority had altered a compulsory re

STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS.versusK.P. NARAYANAN KUTTY

2003 INSC 1816 January 2003Dismissed

The respondent, a Manager (Grade‑I) of State Bank of India, was dismissed after disciplinary proceedings where the enquiry officer found some charges proved, some partly proved and some not proved. The disciplinary authority accepted the proved and not‑proved findings but treated the partly‑proved charges as fully prov

RANJIT SINGHversusUNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

2006 INSC 2105 April 2006Appeal(s) allowed

The appellant, an Inspector of Central Excise and Customs, was investigated by the CBI for possessing assets disproportionate to his known income. Although the CBI later filed a closure report and the departmental Enquiry Officer exonerated him, the Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the enquiry findings, issued a s

Search Indian case law

Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.

Search by issue, statute, judge or citationSign in to search