Supreme Court of India
STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS.versusNARENDRA KUMAR PANDEY
- Citation
- 2013 INSC 34
- Decided
- 14 January 2013
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
- Bench
- K S RADHAKRISHNAN
Holding
A departmental inquiry may be held ex parte under Rule 68(2)(xix) when the officer deliberately refuses to participate, and the dismissal based on such an inquiry stands, rendering High Court interference under Article 226 improper.
Summary
The State Bank of India dismissed Deputy Manager Narendra Kumar Pandey after a departmental inquiry under its Officers Service Rules for twelve charges of misconduct, including fraud and misuse of bank facilities. Pandey did not attend any of the inquiry sessions, nor did he file a written defence, prompting the Inquiring Authority to proceed ex parte under Rule 68(2)(xix). The Bank dismissed him, and Pandey challenged the dismissal via a writ petition under Article 226, arguing procedural violations, notably that the charge‑sheet lacked a list of documents and witnesses. The High Court set aside the dismissal, but the Supreme Court held that the ex parte inquiry was valid, the charge‑sheet need not contain such a list, and the High Court could not intervene where a statutory appeal under Rule 69 was available. The Court affirmed that the standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings is a pre‑ponderance of probability, not beyond reasonable doubt, and that Pandey’s refusal to cooperate barred him from claiming a breach of natural justice. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and reinstated the dismissal.
Issues considered
- The validity of conducting a departmental inquiry ex parte under Rule 68(2)(xix) when the officer refuses to appear.
- Whether Rule 68(2)(ix) obliges the charge‑sheet to contain a list of documents and witnesses.
- The appropriateness of High Court interference under Article 226 despite the existence of a statutory appeal under Rule 69.
- The applicable standard of proof in a service disciplinary inquiry.
- Whether the dismissal violated principles of natural justice.
Legislation cited
- Constitution of Indias. 226
- State Bank of India Act, 1955s. 43(1)
Subjects
departmental inquiryex parteservice rulesnatural justiceArticle 226proof standarddismissalbanking servicestatutory appealRule 68Rule 69
Judgment
[2013] 3 S.C.R. 1109
STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. A
v.
NARENDRA KUMAR PANDEY
(Civil' Appeal No: 263 of 2013)
JANUARY 14, 2013.
B
[K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.]
Service Law:
. State Bank of India Officers' Service Rules -:- rr. 68(2)(v), c
68(2)(ix)(a), 68(2) (viii) and 68(2)(xix) - Departmental ex parte
inquiry - Dismissal from service - Writ petition - High Court
set aside dismissal order - Held: Delinquent officer rightly
dismissed from service - Departmental inquiry was held as
per the procedure laid down under Service Rules - In the 0
absence of procedural irregularity, interference of High Court
u/Art. 226 of Constitutio.n not correct - Constitution of India,
1950 - Art.226.
Departmental inquiry - Degree of proof - Disciplinary
authority is expected to prove the changes on preponderance E
of probability and not on proof beyond. reasonable doubt.
Departmental proceedings were initi.ated against the ·
respondent, an officer of the appellant-Ba.nk for violating
the rules of State Bank of India Officers Service Rules. F
The respondent-officer did not participate in the inquiry
proceedings and in fact walked out of the inquiry.
Therefore,· the ln.quiry Authority concluded the
proc::eedings ex-parte. The Disci.plinary Authority
recommended for dismissal of the charged officer. The G
appointing authority decided to disrniss the charged
offic::er from service in terms of r.67(j) rlw. r.68 of the
Service Rules. The charged officer instead of availing the
remedy of statutory appeal provided ulr.69 of Service
1109 H
1110 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 3 S.C.R.
A Rules, filed writ petition u/Art. 226 of the Constitution.
High Court allowed the petition holding that inquiry was
held in violation of r.68(2)(ix) as the Presenting Officer
had failed to discharge his obligation of making available
the list of all the documents and witnesses to the charged
B officer. Hence the present appeal by the Bank.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Appellant-Bank in the present case has
succeeded in establishing the charges levelled against
C the delinquent officer and he was rightly dismissed from
service which called for no interference by the High Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. [Para 26]
[1128-F-G]
0 1.2. The charged officer, admittedly, did not choose
to nominate his defence representative in spite of several
opportunities given by the Inquiring Authority nor had he
submitted any written statement to the Inquiring Authority.
Neither the charged officer nor any defence
E representative appeared before the Inquiring Authority.
The arguments that were raised before the High Court,
of non-compliance of the procedure, could have been
raised by the charged officer before the Inquiring
Authority, but the same was not done and he had not co-
operated with the inquiry proceedings. In the said
F circumstances, the Inquiring Authority was entitled to
hold the enquiry ex parte as provided under Rule
68(2)(xix) of State Bank of India Officers Service Rules.
[Para 17) [1124-D-F]
G 2. The High Court has committed an error in holding
that the charge-sheet should have mentioned about the
details of the documents and the names of the witnesses
which the Bank proposed to examine and a list to that
effect should have been appended to the charge-sheet.
H The charge-sheet need not contain the details of the
STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. v. NARENDRA 1111
r; :J.2' '':~'./:, Kt.:fMA~'PANDE¥0.J 3M3>Fl~2 <::'t~
documents or the names of the witnesses proposed to A
1 1
b~ ~xam1n1id tol>'r'oO& tlie%'1arges1ar1sriist~to ittlai: ef'.re~t A
unless there is a specific provision totthatreffE!etl :(jha·rgij~
~~,etiLSJl\O~f>~?SP~~~e9,' tq ~~;~J:~~RJ:d\ot1,jyiQ_~~f~· 1 Fair.
procedure do~s not ~ean giving of ~oP.i,~J tR.¥iJ~~
documents or hst of witnesses along with the charge- B
sh"'e'~'t'. ,C)ffeou·~se,d s't~teitier'l't <'4,f sa:negciti~iiE; fias to 8
a~c·company"l~iUP dharg~:s11~et:cwh~ni1r"equ:t.rett1:by.th.e
SeVvfoe'1RU:les'! tihCler! the rclrcbmstaneel>:idf>thel case; the
IRquirlngtAutffor1f'y1 na\::I no rbther;-alt~rnathieibuttta;itrold
thei inquiryllex )>art~j 'The~ ilnquiritig Auttlority)nrid, :th.e c
Pres~ntrrtg·rofficer'lladrfol'foY/id;1protedures;o1arorid.;.own ~)
under" Rufes~68(2)(v),i68(2)(ix)(a},1;68(2)(Viri))i:lnd;;68(2.)1xHc:~
of the Service Rules. [Paras 18 and ff9Jl't124:;µ~H; d1lZ~·
~\~.j-!;~1 1~~-:_1-~] t,,\i:;(', '· '~',/'\ t:C'•uOA. \J Gtw\ •,) Y.i\b8
3.1. The High Court also committed a'n)el-.•tor1 in D
h,oJding.,that Si,nce1,no 1witfle,S$1was. 1examined h;i $Upport 0
~{char,,9 . •• .'(}~.
.,es'
~;,,....,_.., 9
"~a~• •~tca~e~
"it Yf.1,· ;;,;;~~-,'(..Ut'" dt' nJ~e'Jid~W e'. ih"'An lx" a.·. e
.hJ1) lJL.H..'.1>wV Jtift1 ~fi,£,lt. "('if ~J?~~rf...ry_
~.1,19Y 1 rY·1 1 t~~Ef"cb~rg,e~i~~E!~~RE~1~ <i»ld,1fr,5m1 ,,~~~~m)egf~ ~.~81
in the. ngrrnell -.cc<>urs.e, of bu$•n.ess . nQ or~d ev1den~e 1s
n'ec'~~~a'ry-t~~p~ov~e
0
th~~e' ~ha'~ge~~~WRen°tfiEf d~~}~~d E
\._~·i_v •• ,,~.• ,-. __G-·•·'_- ·.·f.r~_'. S: -' _.. ""tc:h..;. J~'~-'~J_~o ~11: fli _~'.liU~n1_ ;1:rr
t
<?!U.c,~r. <;f <?~!>.. ~ 0.L~~t«r~.~,,m~,l ~~rn~~¥:1}~~~g._ h.)~1;ot~ 1lP.R! J
~q~;~~ng::it~~t t~~, Jn,q.~ 1 ~!P,9,:;~,i;it~,~~1 tY.x~"su)1~~n_2o1:.~~~~
r..elted, .upon. ,the do.cu.ment$ wh1cfj w~re ot made
,•Ii'-' u I.,, "'n"/·~ tlC: iHi J t!i'..I
" ' > • ·><-• v "'.> f • c •
avaiJabJe,.nr dis,clos~d to him. Ot- coJ.Jrs.e even
rt BU \;I' LI
in.an ex
P.ad~~i~q~i~, '.~o~~·~vliient~ 'l5an ~~e~S'~Q~tf~ ~J~t~ilW~ww;~
1
~·ilar:.,-e~·.~~s, eci~iri,.YJ~e~~itl~ char~ ~'a 1b'ffic~ti;CleW~5; ltf~ :
1
c'llar~es, un~ont'r<!Je'rt~ci 'cioc~rn~nLW ,.~$JU::·ifc~Jw ~Lb'fi
situation is sufficient to pr0Jtifl{..ch~tg~s~ [P~r~ ~·a1
1 1
[1126l8-D]1 'l ! ; s r. .:i iJ rm 1'' i n ;; rrDh o '.V s ~:n s r~ 'l.I . t'>
erf:t Js111 nit:il(:!mo-::i Jonns.'.l ,v1iupn! srt1 nl ~tsci.1i~wq G
9o(l@.2-.:iT~.~ ~1nm~!rJn9,A~Jt!_p,r.,i,fy1 !:~~n1~~~~... ~~~~ a_~,~•• ~Y;~'\¥
qh~~9~yl.~'f;,ll~p, ~g,_~i[l,S~ t!1;~ 0 gh,~fg~g 3 !?!~if~~i~f~ ~~~ ,J
~oct_!r!ie.~ts. P~C?~i~.9e.~1PY. ,t~erP.!~%emic.J~ 1?.Wi~~ ~,~,, d?ft_!n.~
t9Jh~ ;GQ!,l~!~sJ~!l r~t'~J.mR~.t ;9,f .~~·1c~~~r~&~·';iytt"~,:~r".>,y~~
lflJ,~1i~~R,C![.!~!'!t""r~!'~l:ljry,1~hs·a~i~R~P~.'l',ar¥ j~.~\hRE~t}jr!~
~~ee.cted,itOAprove
• ••
.. thA cl;iai:nes..on pi:eoonrleranceiof f-~H
·'!,.~ v~ ....... , ~.,.;-r~,r-!lr: '3f~ .t ~or3u··1(_;.\~:..f~ JV'fi U!i.i Ut VV
1
1112 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 3 S.C.R.
A probability and not on proof beyond reasonable doubt.
[Para 21] [1126-E-F]
Bank of India v. Apurba Kumar Saha (1994) 2 SCC 615
- relied on.
B 3.3. The documents produced by the Bank, which
were not controverted by the charged officer, supports
all the allegations and charges levelled against the
charged officer. In a case, where the charged officer had
failed to inspect the documents in respect of the
c allegations raised by the Bank and not controverted, it is
always open to the Inquiring Authority to accept the same.
[Para 21] [1126-F-G]
Bank of India v. Apurba Kumar Saha (1994) 2 SCC 615
- relied on.
D
3.4. Even if the Inquiring Authority set the charged
officer ex parte that would not absolve him from deciding
that the charges levelled against him were proved or not.
In other words, no punishment could be imposed without
E an inquiry. In the present case, the Inquiring Authority
had elaborately considered the charges levelled against
the charged officer and also the materials produced by
the bank because some evidence is necessary to
establish the charges. In some cases, proof may only be
documentary and in some cases oral. The requirement
F of proof depends on the facts and circumstances of each
case. [Para 26] (1128-0-F]
4. Where a workman intentionally refuses to
participate in the inquiry, cannot complain that the
G dismissal is against the principles of natural justice. Once
the inquiry proceeds ex parte, it is not necessary for the
Inquiring Authority to again ask the charged officer to
state his defence orally or in writing. In the present case,
the conduct of the charged officer cannot be appreciated
H who did not appear before the Inquiring Authority and
STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. v. NARENDRA 1113
KUMAR PANDEY
offered any explanation to the charges levelled against A
him but approached the High Court stating that the
principles of natural justice had been violated. [Para 25]
[1128-B-D]
Lakshmi Devi Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Pt. Ram Sarup AIR
8
1957 SC 82: 1956 SCR 916 - relied on.
5. The High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India was not justified in interfering with
the order of dismissal passed by the appointing fiuthority
after a full-fledged .inquiry, especially when the Service c
Rules provide for an alternative remedy of appeal. The
High Court while exercising powers under Article 226 of
the Constitution does not act as an appellate authority.
In the present case, no procedural irregularity has been
committed either by the Bank, Presenting Officer or the D
Inquiring Authority. Disciplinary proceedings were
conducted strictly in accordance with the Service Rules.
[Para 23] [1127-C-D, F]
State Bank of India and Ors. v. Ramesh Dinkar Punde
(2006) 7 SCC 212: 2006 (4) Suppl. SCR 511; State of E
Andhra Pradesh v. Sree Rama Rao AIR 1963 SC 1723:
1964 SCR 25 - relied on.
Case Law Reference:
(1972) 4 sec 618 relied on Para 21 F
(1999) 8 sec 90 relied on Para 21
(1994) 2 sec 615 relied on Para 22
2006 (4) Suppl. SCR 511 relied on Para 23
G
1964 SCR 25 relied on Para 24
.1956 SCR 916 relied on Para 25
CIVIL APP ELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 263
of 2013. H
1114 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ,,.(2013} 3 S~C.R.
>f
A From the Judgment & Qrder' dated 22.09.2011 of the High
Court of Judicature at AllaH~bad, Lucknow 8ehch in W.P. Ntj.
757 of 1999. ; ;c
· l. } I I
H.P,. Rawal, ASG, Sanjay Kapur, Priyanka Oas, Anmol
B Chandan for the Appellant. ,. . 1
,. e,
C~weator-ln-Person.
I . . . . .
The Judgment of the <;:ourt was deliver~d by
.,, .
I • . .
c K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. 1. Leave gr~nted.. .
;:..,.C , L . .._ Jii
2. We are, in tnis case, c;oncerQ!;ld ~Uh the,JegeilHy qH~.~
judgment of the High Court setting ~siste ~.n -9f4er dated
11.03J 999 passed by the State Bank of India di~ii>sing th~
charged officer (respondent) from service in e~~rcis~ of. pow~rs
D conferred under Article 226 of the Constit1,1ijo119f India. . p, 1 ,
, ~- -,
' . ' . ' ... .
3. The charged offieer, herein, while he W~$ functioning ·as
the Deputy Manager of the Bank was served ·with a char~~·
sheet dated 15.02.1995 by the Joint Manager (Operations)
E [Disciplinary Authority] stating that while he was..· posted, a.$
officer JMGS-1 at Government Business Branch. Kanpur, and
Accountant and officiating Branch Manager at Kalpt Road
(Kanpur) Branch from 21st May 1985 to 20th October 1987 and
21st October 1987 to 22nd May 1991 tespectively had failed
F to discharge his duties with utmost integrity,. ~onesty, -O~votion
and diligence and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Bank
Official and highly prejudicial to the Bank's interest in deliberate
violation of Rules 50(3), 50(4), 50(9) and 60(2) of ttie State
Bank of India Officers Service Rules (In short 'the Service
Rules'). · , ic. ... . ·,_
G
4. Altogether, 12 charges were framed against him.
Charges are given under for easy reference:
,.
• ·•· .i
Charge No.1
H You raised a number of spurious entries by deb1t~r1g
STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. v. NARENDRA 1115
KUMAR PANDEY [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
LOCULIT Ale- at Kalpi Road Branch, Kanpur and afforded A
fictitious credit to the Current Account No.7/12 in the name of
Shri O.S. Srivastava a.nd Savings Bank Account No. 9095 in
the name of Shri Surinder Kumar. Both the account holders
cwere fictitious/non-existent. Although the account opening form
in the case of Shri O.S .. Srivastava is not traceable, it is B
apparent from the account opening form of Shri Surinder Kumar,
that the account was allowed/authorized by you. It shows your
alleged involvement in the fraud. ·
Charge No.2
c
You granted and opened under your authentication
Demand Loan Accounts in the name of Fictitious/non-existent
persons against pledge of fictitious NSCs with a view to avail
yourself the Bank's funds unauthorisedly and in an illegal
manner.· D
· Charge No.3
You availed a conveyance loan for Rs.78,000/- for purchase
of a Car. The proceeds of the loan were credited to your
r'account on 28.05.1988 and were withdrawn by you in cash the E
. same day but you did not purchase the vehicle within a month
·of availment of loan as per Bank's instructions.
Charge No. 4
• F
(i) You got issued a number of cheque books on your
savings bank and current account, although only
few cheque leaves were used by you. The requisite
cheque book requisition slips .or your specific
requests for issue of cheque books are not
available. Thus, your act of getting issued several G
cheque books to yourself without exhausting·the
earlier ones, is highly irregular on your part and in
. contravention of the Bank's laid down instructions
(ii) You utilized a cheque leaf bearing no. 422276 for H
1116 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 3 S.C.R.
A drawing on your savings bank account no. 5603
with Kalpi Road Branch although the cheque book
containing this cheque leaf was issued to some
other account holder and has been recorded as
"surrendered and destroyed" in the Branch books.
B Thus, you have taken unauthorized possession of
the cheque which was incorrectly shown as
destroyed in the Branch books.
(iii) A few Savings Bank Cheque books have been
found to be missing from the branch as no record
c for issue of these cheque books to account holders
is there in the Branch Books.
Charge No.5
0 You deliberately withheld DD Purchase documents
received at the Branch by not responding these by debit to the
relative accounts, with a view to providing undue benefits to the
customers at the bank's cost.
Charge No.6
E
You misutilised the Bank's funds by negotiation of fake
instruments as DD on Patna. These ODs were returned unpaid
subsequently and the amounts were made good by you either
in cash or through your savings bank account.
F
Charge No.7
You negotiated cheques drawn on local branches at
Kanpur as DD to yourself in utter disregard to Bank's laid down
instructions.
G
Charge No.8
Although no STDRfTDR existed in the name of Shri O.S.
Srivastava in branch books, you made false noting in the
H cheque referred and returned register against the entries in
STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. v. NARENDRA 1117
KUMAR PANDEY [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
respect of two cheques drawn by him on his current account to A
give misleading information that Shri Srivastava had STDR/
TOR. The balance in the account of Shri O.S. Srivastava was
not sufficient to pay these cheques. Due to the false and
misleading information furnished by you to the then Branch
Manager, these cheques were allowed on both the occasions. B
Charge No.9
Your savings bank account no. 5603 shows numerous
debiUcredit transactions (other than salary and allowances)
which you did not explain (sic) for heavy amounts. C
GOVERNMENT BUSINESS BRANCH, KANPUR
Charge No.10
Your Savings Bank Account No.38 vyithGovt. Business D
Branch (Kanpur) shows frequent credit tr'ansadlons (both cash
and transfer) other than salary for heavy amounts which you
could not explain properly.
Charge No.11 E
In your Savings Bank Account No. 38, while most of the
withdrawals from the account were made bywayofwithdrawal
forms, you got 4 cheque books iss.ued and utilized
approximately 15 cheques only. You did .11C>t advise, how the
remaining cheque, were utilized. H is noticed that out of F
unutilized cheques, one cheque bearing no: 835524 was issued
by you on 17.9.1987 favouring SBI SEE Co-op. Credit Society·
Ltd. Unnao for Rs.500/- on Kalpi Road (Kanpur) Branch, where
no Savings Bank Account in your name existed in the books
of that Branch. Thus, you have misutitised the facility, and G
issued the cheque without funds in your account.
Charge No.12
(i) You· issued a Cheque no.315083 dated 4.4.86 for H
A...'"r:i. ·v -•
1118 $UPREME ~COURT REPORTS ., 12013} 3 S.f.R.
.J'. • ' . ' .
A ,. r Rs.6030.08 favouring Mis ·society Jewellers which
,... was returned u~paid .due t~ insufficient balance in
• 1 your ac;:court.t.no.38. On representation ,of tpe
, , ,rcheque on 43.4.86, it was paid, ~fter cash deposit
- :.;~ . of Rs.6.,000/- by you. Thus. you issued cheque
s - without maintaining sufficient balance in your
account.
(ii) You ~sued cheque oo. 315830 dated 23\6.87 for
'" Rs.4,QP1l· favouring Mis Bhagat Ram Jai Nar~in
without maintaining sufficient ba)ance in ypur
c savings Bank Account No.38. The cheque could be
' paid when ~11'ilep0slted .:Rs.14,000/- cash on
24.6.87.
;;;, I
~ . , i-:~ii} . Your .sl.J~Q a~tion,s were highly prejudicial to the
D ~ -·. Bank'sJnte'rest ~nd unbeqoming of Bank Offic~~~;.
'5. Along with th'e chargesheet, statements of allegations
were also annexed. , -
6. The charged officer was informed that it' was decided
E ~~. h.gld a, c;lepartm~nta[ inquiry against him in terms of Rule
68(f~(ii), of t~~ Serviee, Rules re~d w,it~ Rule 57 in supp?rt of
,the.:ab~ve-mentioned ch~rge&. The charged ,officer was given
15 ~~ys t[rne to submit his s,tatement of defenc;:e: The charged
offieer ~ubmitted his reply 90,29.63.1995 denying all the
F ch~;rne?,..On 24.03.1995~ the i;;~arged officer sought permission
fro~ th"e',Ban~ for 'inspeghcm Of the relevant documents, which
was permitted J:iy the Bank on 29.04.19$5. The Disciplinary
Al.\l~ority vide letter No. Vig/9,()/11 dated 08..'05.1 !:)96 appointed
thi; Inquiring Avthority to inquire into the' charges le~elled against
G the charged officer as per the ¢harge sheet dated 15.02.1995.
The Inquiring.Authority issued a notice dated 11.05.1996 to the
charged officer informing him of the holding of the prelirninary
hearing on 11.06.1996. From 11.06.1996 to 07.11.1997, the
f~cjcitring Authority conducted inquiryot:i 1!/,dates and ,n:iany a
H times the inquiry was adjourned on the request of the charged
i
I
STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. v. NARENDRA ·1119 i l
KUMAR PANDEY [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.] !
I
I
officer, He chose to remain absent on as many as 7 dates of A i
hearing.
j
. · 7. We find from the records that the Inquiring Authority
permitted the charged officer to inspect the records in the ,.I
\!
presence of investigating officer and fixed the date on l
8 I j
20.06.1997. Due to some inconvenience, nothing transpired on
. 20.06.1997 and another date was fixed i.e. 21.07.1997.
·Consequently, last opportunity was given to the charged officer
to go through the documents and submit a list of documents
and witnesses. The charged officer, it is seen, did not avail the C
opportunity and remained absent on 21.07 .1997. On
06.11.1997, the charged officer walked out of the inquiry. The
· Inquiring Authority, however, continued and concluded ex parte
on 07.11.1997.
8. We noti~e that the charged officer did not even choose D
to nominate his defence representative .in spite of various
opportunities g'iven by the Inquiring Authority. The presenting
officer had sent his written brief cin 08.12.1997 but no written
. briefwas sent by the charged officer. He was given time upto
· 14.01.1998. The presenting officer had informed the Inquiring E
Authority thata list of bank documents was for.Varded to the
ctfarged officer vide his letter dated 21.05.1997 but the
charged officer did not accept the same. The presenting officer
was in fact present on 13.09.1997 and 14.06.1997 in the bank
office but the charged officer did not report for the inspection F
of the bank documents on those.days as well. The Inquiring
Authority had written a fetter dated 25.06.1997 informing the
charged officer that the presenting officer had been instructed
to forward a list of bank documents and witnesses by
. 30.06.1997 and get the bank's documents inspected by him G
in his presence before 12.07.1997 that was the last opportunity
given to the charged officer. The same was also not availed
·of. In the said circumstances, the Inquiring Authority had no other
alternative but to conduct the inquiry ex parte. The presenting
offieer then produced original documents before the Inquiring
H
1120 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 3 S.C.R.
A Authority and after elaborate consideration of the charges, the
statements of allegations and the supporting documents and
after hearing the presenting officer, the Inquiring Authority came
to the conclusion that charge nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12
were proved. Charge nos.4, 6 and 11 were found to be partly
B proved. The Inquiring Authority vide his report dated 15.01.1998
concluded that the charged officer had failed to discharge his
duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and
acted in a manner unbecoming of a bank official and highly
prejudicial to the Bank's interest. The Disciplinary Authority later
C considered the relevant records of the case, including the
findings of the Inquiring Authority and the submission made by
the charged officer and submitted his recommendation to the
appointing authority. The appointing authority, after going
through the relevant records of the case, the charge-sheet,
proceedings of the inquiry, written briefs of the presenting
D officer, the findings of the Inquiring Authority etc., decided to
dismiss the charged officer from service in terms of Rule 67(j)
of the Service Rules read with Rule 68 of the Service Rules.
The order was passed to that effect on 11.03.1999. The charged
officer was also informed that he has a right of appeal to the
E appellate authority as per Rule 69 of the Service Rules.
9. The charged officer without availing of the remedy of a
statutory appeal approached the High Court under Article 226
of the Constitution of India. The High Court, however, took the
F view that the presenting officer had failed to discharge his
obligation of making available the list of all the documents and
witnesses to the charged officer. The Court held Rule 68(2)(ix)
contemplates that the Inquiry officer must ensure supply of list
of documents and witnesses to be relied on by Bank in support
G of its charges. The Court took the view that the presenting
officer did not place anything on record to show when the list
was made available to the charged officer. Further, it was also
noticed that the bank had failed to examine any witnesses in
respect of the charges and, therefore, the findings recorded by
H the Inquiring Authority could not be sustained. The Court,
STATE BANK OF !NOIA AND ORS. v. NARENDRA 1121
KUMAR PANDEY [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
therefore, allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned A
order dated 11.03.1999 with liberty to hold a fresh inquiry. There
was a further direction to the Bank to pay arrears of subsistence
allowance treating the period of his absence as deemed
suspension.
B
10. Shri Harin P. Rawal, learned Additional Solicitor
General appearing for the Bank, submitted that the High Court
has committed an error in interfering with the order of dismissal
especially when the charged officer had an alternative remedy
of appeal under Rule 69 of the Service Rules. Learned counsel C
also submitted that the list of bank documents for inspection
had been enclosed by the presenting officer vide letter dated
21.05.1997 to the charged officer which the charged officer had
refused to accept. Further, it was also pointed qut that vide
letter dated 30.05.1997, the presenting officer had enclosed the
list of bank C::>cuments and requested the charged officer to D
inspect the same at the relevant branch which also the charged
officer refused to accept. Learned counsel also pointed out that
the bank had given sufficient opportunities to inspect those
documents in the bank's office, the said fact was taken note of
by the Inquiring Authority. Learned counsel also pointed out that E
where a bank employee who had refused to avail of the
opportunities provided to him in a disciplinary proceeding of
defending himself against the charges of misconduct cannot be
permitted to complain later that he had been denied a
reasonable opportunity of defending himself of the charges F
levelled against him. Learned counsel also pointed out that in
a disciplinary proceeding, the standard of proof required is
preponderance of probability and not proof beyond reasonable
doubt. The High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India was not justified in setting aside that order especially when G
the charged officer could have appealed to 1he appellate
authority under Rule 69 of the Service Rules.
11. Respondent appeared in-person and submitted that
there is no illegality in the order passed by the High Court H
1122 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 3 S.C.R
A calling for interference by this Court. The reepondent pointed
out tl'iat cogent reasons had been stated by the High Court in
setting aside the order of dismissal which is 1,ma$Sailable.
Further; it was pointed out that under Rule 68(~)(ix), the Inquiry,
Officer must ensure supply of the list of document$ and
B witnesses relied by Bank to support the charges. There is
nothing in the record of proceedintJ'which would show that the
pres~nting officer had produced the list of documents before
the Inquiring Authority and hence no copy of the same was made
available t6 the charged officer as well. Further, it was also
c 'pointed out that the burden is on the bank to establish the
:charges levelled against the charged officer which the bank had
noti8ischarged and the High Court has rightly set aside the
order of dismissal. _- •. + ; • -
'v • -
, " b12. The first infirmity pointed out by theHigh Court was that
0 ·charge-sheet did not mention anything about,the documents o~
the witnesses which/whom it proposeGi to- rely to prove. the
chatges, nor appended any list of documents or witnesses. The
·presenting.offioer had-also,:e1ccording to, the High Court, failed
to provid& the 'ist of documents and witnesses to t~e ch,arg~~
:~E officer Further, the High Court also pointed out that mirlute~,of
the proceedings would indicate that forty-eight more documents
w~re produced before the Inquiring- Authority and the res~ of the
~dbcuments were. permitted to be produced on 07 .11.1997. On
;07.11.1997, thirty four more :documents were. produ~d anq
'F marked as•Ex, 51 to 84. The High Court ;;iJso ppinted out ~t
no, witness was examined by the Bank in support of enarges
and hence to hold the charges relating to Government Business
Stanch proved was in fact a finding supported with no evidence.
. j •••
;
G 'l 13. St~te Bank. of India Officers Sendce Rules ar~ framed
.i!l e)f.ercise of powers conferred under Section 43(1) of Stat~
Bank of India Act, 1.955. Chapter XI of tbe S~rviee Rules deals
with conduct, discipline and 'appeal. Decision to initiate and
'procedure for disciplinary action is dealt with in Rule 68 of the
H Service Rules. Admittedly, the provision o( Rule 68(3) had been
STATE BANK OF INDIAAND ORS. v. NARENDRA 1123
KUMAR PANDEY [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
complied with and the charged officer was given time to file A
objections to the charges levelled against him. The charged
officer filed his reply on 29.03.1995 for the charges levelled
against him. Rule 68(2)(v) says that the disciplinary authority
shall where it is not the Inquiring Authority, forward to the
Inquiring Authority the following documents: B
(a) A copy of the articles of charge and statements of
imputations of misconduct;
• (b) A copy of the written statement of defence, if any,
submitted by the officer; C
(c) · .A list.of documents by which and list of witnesses
by whom the articles of charge are proposed to be
/
substantiated;
(d) . A copy of statements of the witnesses, if any; D
(e) Evidence proving the delivery of the articles of
charge under clause (iii);
(fr A copy of the order appointing the "Presenting E
Officer" in temis of clause (vi) .
..\ ' - .· - ..
. 14. Rule 68(2)(a) states that the Inquiring Authorityshall
where thi'officer does not admit all or any of the articles of
charge furnish to such officer a list of documents by which, and
a list of witnesses by whom, the articles of charge are proposed F
tO be proved. ·
· 15. Rule 68(2)(xiii) states that on•the date fixed for the
inquiry, the oral and documentary evidence by which the articles
of charge are proposed to be proved shall be produced by or G
on behalf of the Bank. The witnesses produced by the
presenting officer shall be examined by the presenting officer
and may be cross-examined by or on behalf of the officer. The
presenting officer shall be entitled to re-examine his witnesses
on any points on which they have been cross-examined, but not H
1124 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 3 S.C.R.
A on a new matter without the leave of the Inquiring Authority. The
Inquiring Authority may also put such questions to the witnesses
as it thinks fit.
16. Rule 68(2)(xix) states that if the officer does not submit
the written statement of defence referred to in clause (iii) on or
8
before the date specified for the purpose or does not appear
in person, or through the officer's representative or otherwise
fails or refuses to comply with any of the provisions of these
rules which require the presence of the officer or his
representative, the Inquiring Authority may hold the enquiry ex
C parte.
17. We may in the light of the above-mentioned statutory
provisions examine the correctness of the order passed by the
High Court. The charged officer, admittedly, did not choose to
D nominate his defence representative in spite of several
opportunities given by the Inquiring Authority nor had he
submitted any written statement to the Inquiring Authority. Time
was given upto 14.01.1998 to do so but he had not availed of
that opportunity. Neither the charged officer nor any defence
E representative appeared before the Inquiring Authority. The
arguments that were raised before the High court of non-
compliance of the procedure, could have been raised by the
charged officer before the Inquiring Authority, but the same was
not done and he had not co-operated with the inquiry
F proceedings. In the said circumstances, the Inquiring Authority
was entitled to hold the enquiry ex parte as provided under Rule
68(2)(xix).
18. We are of the view that the High Court has committed
an error in holding that the charge-sheet should have mentioned
G about the details of the documents and the names of the
witnesses which the Bank proposed to examine and a list to
that effect should have been appended to the charge sheet. We
may point out that the charge-sheet need not contain the details
of the documents or the names of the witnesses proposed to
H be examined to prove the charges or a list to that effect unless
STATE BANK OF !NOIA AND ORS. v. NARENDRA 1125
KUMAR PANDEY [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
there is a specific provision to that effect. Charge-sheet, in A
other words, is not expected to be a record of evidence. Fair
procedure does not mean giving of copies of the documents
or list of witnesses along with the charge-sheet. Of course,
statement of allegations has to accompany the charge-sheet,
when required by the Service Rules. B
19. We notice the presenting officer had informed the
inquiring authority that the list of bank's documents was
forwarded to the charged officer vide his letter dated
21.05.1997 but the charged officer did not accept that letter.
Charged officer's related letter would also indicate that he was C
advised not to accept the letter along with its enclosure.
Presenting officer had again sent the list of bank's documents
to the charged officer vide his letter dated 27.06.1997, the
same was also not responded to by the charged officer. The
Inquiring Authority further directed the presenting officer to D
make arrangements for the charged official to inspect the
bank's documents. Consequently, the presenting officer vide his
letter dated 30.05.1997 and 27.06.1997 made arrangements
for inspection of bank's documents on 13.06.1997, 14.06.1997,
09.07.1997 and 10.07.1997 respectively. Presenting officer E
was also present for facilitating the inspection but the charged
officer did not turn up for inspection of the bank's documents.
In fact the Inquiring Authority himself had written a letter dated
25.06.1997 to the charged officer advising him that the
presenting officer had again been· instructed to forward the list F
of bank's documents and witnesses by 30.06.1997 and ge:t the
bank's documents inspected by him in his presence before
12.07 .1997 which was the last opportunity given to the charged
officer. One more opportunity was given by the Inquiring
Authority to the charged officer to submit the list of defence G
documents and witnesses by 19.07 .1997 but the charged
officer did not give any list of defence documents and
witnesses and on most of the days, the charged officer did not
appear before the Inquiring Authority. On 06.11.1997, the
charged officer walked out of the inquiry. Under such
H
11~6 ,SUPREME COURT REPORTS .'·(2013] 3 S.C.R..
. '
A •
A circurn!?tances, the Inquiring Authority had no other alternative
but to hold the inquiry ex .parte. We are of the view that the
lnquiri{:lg Autnority and the presenting officer had followed
proce~ures laid down under Rules 68(2)(v), 68(2){ix)(a),
68(2)(vi.ii) ~d 68(2)(xix) of the Service R·~les.
B 20. We are of the view that the High Coart also.committed
ari err9f in holding \hat since no witness wa.s examined in
s1;1pport of charges, it was a case of no evidenqe. In an ex parte
i,nquiry, in o,ur view, if the charges are borne out from documents
kept!n the normal course, of business, no oral evidence is
:C nece~sary to prove those cha_rges. Wh.~~ t,he. c;:harged officer
does_, not attend the inquiry, 1 tl:len he cannot coptend that the
lnq1.1fr\rig Authority should not have reliea upon the doc!Jrn~nts
whictrwere not made available or disclosed to him. Of course,
even.in- an ex parte inquiry, some ev.ir;lenc.e is necessary to
·D estat?lish the ~harges, especially when the charged officer
deni~s the charges, µncontroverted docurnenJary evidence in
sucry; situation is sufficient to prove
.
the charges.
' . ~
:J"21. The lnqLiiring Authority ha-s examined each and: every
char_ge levelled against the· charged officer and the documents
E produced by the presentihg officer and came to the conclusion
that most of the charges were proved. In a departmental inquiry,
the disciplinary authority is expected to prove the charges on
preponderance of probability and not on proof beyond
reasonable doubt. Reference may' be made to·the judgments
;F ·of this Court reported in Union of India v. Sardar Bahadur,
(1972} 4 SCC 618 and R.S. &1ini v.. State of Punjab and
Others; f1999) 8 SCC 90. The '.documents produced by the
bank, which were not oontmverted by the charged officer,
supports atl the a11egations and charges levelled against the
G ·&arged officer. In a case, where the charged officer had failed
t6 inspect the documents in respect of the allegations raised
b'y the bank iand not controverted it is always open to the
i[nqtiiflng Authority to accept the same.
~ . '
· 22. In Bank of India v: Apar_bg_ K.,f1mar SC!hq; -~1994) 2
H
STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. v. NARENDRA 1127
KUMAR PANDEY [K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]
sec 615, this court held: A
"A bank employee who had refused to avail of the
opportunities provided to him in a disciplinary proceeding
of defending himself against the charges of misconduct
involving his integrity and honesty, cannot be permitted to
complain later that he had been denied a reasonable B
opportunity of defending himself of the charges levelled
against him and the disciplinary proceeding conducted
against ~im by-the bank employer had resulted in violation
of principles of-natural justice of fair hearing".
23. The High Court, in our view, under Article 226 of the C
Constitution of India was not justified in interfering with the order
of dismissal passed by the appointing authority after a full-
fledged inquiry, especially when the Service Rules provide for
an alternative remedy of appeal. It is a well acceptable principle
of law that the High Court while exercising powers under Article D
226 of the Constitution does not act as an appellate authority.
Of course, its jurisdiction is circumscribed and confined to
correct an error of law or procedural error, if any, resulting in
manifest miscarriage of justice or violation of the principles of
natural justice. In State Bank of India and Others v. Ramesh E
Dinkar Punde (2006) 7 SCC 212, this Court held that the High
Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence acting as a court of
Appeal. We have, on facts, found that no procedural irregularity
has been committed either by the Bank, presenting officer or
the Inquiring Authority. Disciplinary proceedings were F
conducted strictly in accordance with the Service Rules.
24. This court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Sree Rama
Rao; AIR 1963 SC 1723 held:
"Where there is some evidence, which the authority G
entrusted with the duty to hold the inquiry has accepted and
which evidence may reasonably support the conclusion
that delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, it is not the
function of the High Court in a petition for a writ under
Article 226. to review the evidence and to arrive at an
H
1128 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2013] 3 S.C.R.
A independent finding on the evidence especially when the
charged officer had not participated in the inquiry and had
not raised the grounds urged by him before the High Court
by the Inquiring Authority."
25. This Court in Lakshmi Devi Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Pt.
B Ram Sarup; AIR 1957 SC 82 held where a workman
intentionally refuses to participate in the inquiry, cannot complain
that the dismissal is against the principles of natural justice.
Once the inquiry proceed ex parte, it is not necessary for the
Inquiring Authority to again ask the charged officer to s~ate his
C defence orally or in writing. We cannot appreciate the conduct
of the charged officer in this case, who did not appear before
the Inquiring Authority and offered any explanation to the
charges levelled against him but approached the High Court
stating that the principles of natural justice had been violated.
D 26. We are also conscious of the fact that even if the
Inquiring Authority set the charged officer ex parte that would
not absolve him from deciding that the charges levelled against
him were proved or not. In other words, no punishment could
be imposed without an inquiry. We notice in this case the
E Inquiring Authority had elaborately considered the charges
levelled against the charged officer and also the materials
produced by the bank becau3e some evidence is necessary
to establish the charges. In some cases, proof may only be
documentary and in some cases oral. The requirement of proof
F depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.
Appellant - Bank in this case has succeeded in establishing
the charges levelled against the delinquent officer and was
rightly dismissed from service which called for no interference
by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
G 27. In view of the above-mentioned reasons, we find it
difficult to support the judgment of the High Court. Consequently,
the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside
with no order as to costs.
H K.K.T. Appeal allowed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "departmental inquiry"Sign in to search