STATE BANK OF INDIA & OTHERSversusRAMADHAR SAO

               [2025] 8 S.C.R. 1084 : 2025 INSC 1010

                     State Bank of India & Others
                                  v.
                            Ramadhar Sao
                     (Civil Appeal No. 10680 of 2025)
                              20 August 2025
                [Rajesh Bindal* and Manmohan, JJ.]


                          Issue for Consideration
       The respondent was removed from services. The order of
       punishment was set aside by the Single Bench of the High Court
       and the respondent was directed to be reinstated with back wages.
       By the impugned judgment intra-court appeal filed by the Bank
       was dismissed against the order passed by the Single Bench of
       the High Court.

                                 Headnotes†
       Service Law – Removal from Service – Respondent joined
       the Bank as a messenger – Complaints were received against
       the respondent for taking bribe for coordination in sanction
       of loans – Inquiry Officer submitted his report by holding
       the respondent guilty of acting as a middleman for sanction
       and disbursement of loans at the branch by taking illegal
       gratification and his unauthorized absence from duty was
       also proved – Accepting the report, punishment of ‘dismissal
       from service’ was imposed upon the respondent – However,
       the Appellate Authority vide order dated 07.12.2012, reduced
       the penalty from ‘dismissal’ to ‘removal from service’ with
       superannuation benefits – Writ Petition filed by the respondent
       before the Single Bench of the High Court was allowed and he
       was reinstated with back wages – Intra-Court appeal preferred
       by the Bank was dismissed – Correctness:
       Held: There was no violation of Principles of Natural Justice –
       Due process was followed during the course of inquiry – The
       Inquiry Officer appreciated the evidence led by five loanees who
       categorically deposed that they had paid money to the respondents
       for coordinating sanction of their loans despite their documents
       being deficit – The opinion expressed by the Single Bench that
       the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer and the Disciplinary
       Authority were based on conjuncture and surmises, cannot be
* Author
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                                1085

             State Bank of India & Others v. Ramadhar Sao


     legally sustained – It is for the reason that if entire evidence is
     perused, there was no error in the findings record – These were
     based on preponderance of probabilities and strict proof of evidence
     beyond reasonable doubt was not required – The proved charge
     against the respondent was that he was working as a conduit in
     getting the loans sanctioned – Further, the fact which has been
     recorded by the Disciplinary Authority, when respondent appeared
     in response to a show cause notice before imposition of penalty,
     points towards the direction where he apparently admitted his
     guilt – Thus, the impugned orders passed by the Single Bench and
     the Division Bench of the High Court cannot be legally sustained –
     The same are liable to be set aside – The order passed by the
     Appellate Authority dated 07.12.2012 imposing punishment of
     ‘removal from service’ with superannuation benefits stands restored.
     [Paras 14, 14.1, 14.2, 14.3, 15]

                               Case Law Cited
     SBI v. Ajai Kumar Srivastava, 2021 INSC 7 : [2021] 1 SCR 51 :
     (2021) 2 SCC 612; Boloram Bordoloi v. Lakhimi Gaolia Bank
     and Others, 2021 INSC 66 : [2021] 1 SCR 858 : (2021) 3 SCC
     806 – referred to.

                              List of Keywords
     Service Law; Removal from service; Sanction of loans; Unauthorised
     absence from duty; Illegal gratification; Principles of natural justice;
     Preponderance of probabilities; Conjuncture and surmises;
     Dismissal; Superannuation benefits.

                             Case Arising From
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 10680 of 2025
     From the Judgment and Order dated 14.12.2022 of the High Court
     of Judicature at Patna in LPA No. 1283 of 2018

                          Appearances for Parties
     Advs. for the Appellants:
     Sanjay Kapur, Surya Prakash, Ms. Shubhra Kapur, Ms. Mahima
     Kapur, Ms. Akanksha Bhatia, Ms. Annu Mishra.
     Advs. for the Respondent:
     Devashish Bharukha,Sr.Adv., Ms. Sarvshree, Ms. Rita Jha.
1086                                                          [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                                   Supreme Court Reports


                       Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                          Judgment

       Rajesh Bindal, J.

1.     The present appeal has been filed by the appellants1 aggrieved by
       the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court2 in appeal3
       filed by them. By the impugned judgment intra-court appeal filed by
       the Bank was dismissed against the order4 passed by the Single
       Bench of the High Court.
2.     The respondent had approached the High Court by filing writ petition5
       challenging order dated 07.12.2012 passed in statutory appeal filed
       by him before the Appellate Authority, by which his punishment was
       reduced from ‘dismissal’ to ‘removal from service’ with superannuation
       benefits.
3.     Briefly the facts available on record are that the respondent joined
       the Bank as a messenger in the year 1997. In April 2008, complaints
       were received against the respondent for taking bribe for coordination
       in sanction of loans. Vide notice dated 15.11.2008, the Bank called
       upon the respondent to explain his absence from duty and that he
       had been executing some loan documents at his residence and
       bank branch as well.
4.     Not being satisfied with the reply of the respondent, the Bank issued
       a formal Memo of Charge to the respondent on 05.01.2010 regarding
       allegation of his being a conduit for getting the loans sanctioned and
       taking illegal gratification. The respondent, on 12.02.2010, submitted
       his reply to the chargesheet. On 10.03.2010, the Disciplinary
       Authority appointed inquiry officer to enquire into the truthfulness of
       the allegations made against the respondent. On 04.10.2010, the
       Inquiry Officer submitted his report by holding the respondent guilty
       of acting as a middleman for sanction and disbursement of loans at


1    For short, ‘the Bank’
2    High Court of Judicature at Patna
3    LPA No.1283 of 2018
4    Dated 16.05.2018 in C.W.J.C. No.3594 of 2013
5    C.W.J.C. No.3594 of 2013
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                        1087

                 State Bank of India & Others v. Ramadhar Sao


      the branch by taking illegal gratification and his unauthorized absence
      from duty from 20.04.2008 to 25.04.2008 was also proved. Copy of
      the report was supplied to the respondent and show cause notice
      was issued on 29.12.2010, before imposition of penalty. He appeared
      before the Disciplinary Authority on 08.01.2011 claimed innocence
      and sought forgiveness for any mistake committed.
5.    Vide order dated 08.01.2011, accepting the report of the Inquiry
      Officer, punishment of ‘dismissal from service’ was imposed upon the
      respondent. Aggrieved against the same, the respondent preferred
      statutory appeal. Taking a compassionate view, the Appellate Authority
      vide order dated 07.12.2012, reduced the penalty from ‘dismissal’ to
      ‘removal from service’ with superannuation benefits. Still not satisfied
      with the order of the Appellate Authority, the respondent preferred writ
      petition6 before the High Court. The same was allowed by the Single
      Bench. The order of punishment was set aside and the respondent
      was directed to be reinstated with back wages. The Single Bench
      also granted liberty to initiate fresh proceeding against the petitioner
      therein including all other persons involved in the said misconduct.
      Aggrieved against the order passed by the Single Bench, the Bank
      preferred intra-court appeal7 which was dismissed8 by the Division
      Bench of the High Court. Aggrieved against the same, the present
      appeal has been filed before this Court.
6.    Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Division Bench
      of the High Court has failed to take notice of the facts of the case
      correctly. Reference was made to the show cause notice issued to
      the respondent, which was the initial notice. By treating the same
      as the chargesheet for initiating disciplinary proceedings, the matter
      was examined. In fact, subsequently disciplinary proceedings were
      initiated on an independent chargesheet detailing out the allegations.
      It is a case in which the Appellate Authority had already taken a
      compassionate view while reducing the penalty from ‘dismissal’ to
      ‘removal from service’ with superannuation benefits. The Single
      Bench, while allowing the aforesaid writ petition, wrongly emphasized



6    C.W.J.C. No.3594 of 2013
7    L.P.A. No.1283 of 2018
8    Dated 14.12.2022
1088                                                          [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                                Supreme Court Reports


      that as per the allegations there were other officers involved and
      only the respondent was singled out while others have not been
      punished. In fact, two other officers, the Branch Manager and Field
      Officer involved with the respondent were punished with removal
      from service.
      6.1 It was further argued that the scope of interference in a writ
          petition against the departmental proceedings is not like an
          appeal. In judicial review, only procedural aspect could be
          examined. It is not the case of the respondent that there was
          any violation of principles of natural justice as he participated in
          the inquiry and cross-examined the witnesses. The customers
          of the Bank, in whose cases the respondent had coordinated
          with other bank officials for sanction of loan, have also deposed
          against him. Their loan accounts had become irregular. The
          respondent has already attained the age of superannuation on
          30.06.2022. If the Disciplinary Authority agrees with the report
          of the Inquiry Officer, detailed reasons are not required to be
          recorded. It is only when the report is not accepted. In support
          of the arguments, reliance has been placed upon the judgments
          of this Court in SBI v. Ajai Kumar Srivastava9 and Boloram
          Bordoloi v. Lakhimi Gaolia Bank and Others10.
7.    On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted
      that the respondent has been made a scapegoat in the case. He
      was merely a class IV employee at lowest level. His primary job was
      printing of passbooks. He had no authority either to file, process or
      sanction any loan. If any irregularity was there, for that senior officers
      in the Bank could be held responsible and not the respondent. It had
      come on record in cross-examination of PW-6/Dilip Kumar Mehta,
      the field officer in the Bank, that the loan documents are to be filled
      up by the field officer. It came in the evidence of PW-7/Ajay Demta
      that the work and behaviour of the respondent had been satisfactory,
      and he was one of the dependable staff members. It is evident
      from a letter dated 20.09.2010, i.e. after the alleged incident, the
      respondent was promoted to the post of Assistant. This shows that
      his work and conduct was good.


9    (2021) 2 SCC 612 : 2021 INSC 7
10   (2021) 3 SCC 806 : 2021 INSC 66
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                       1089

             State Bank of India & Others v. Ramadhar Sao


     7.1 It was further argued that the Single Bench had given liberty
         to the Bank to initiate fresh inquiry. The said order was passed
         on 16.05.2018. More than seven years have passed and the
         Bank could have initiated fresh inquiry instead of taking the
         litigation further. It was submitted that there is no error in the
         order passed by the Single Bench as well as Division Bench
         of the High Court and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
         Even now, to put closure to the litigation, seeing the plight of
         the respondent who was a class IV employee, the relief granted
         to him can be moulded, may be by reducing the back wages.
8.   Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant
     referred record.
9.   Some facts in brief have already been noticed in the earlier part of
     the judgment, hence we do not deem it appropriate to narrate the
     same again. What emerges from the documents is that a show cause
     notice was issued to the respondent by the Bank on 15.11.2008
     seeking his explanation on following two grounds:
           “(a) You were on leave for 5 days upto 19.04.2008, but
           did not turn up to the Branch till the completion of the
           investigation i.e. 28.04.2008. There was no notice to the
           Branch in this regard.
           (b) It has been alleged that you have been executing loan
           documents at your residence and at Bank Branch also.”
10. In response to the said letter, no satisfactory explanation was
    submitted by the Respondent. Chargesheet was issued to the
    respondent by the Bank on 05.01.2010 alleging that there were
    serious irregularities in his discharge of duties in the Bank. He acted
    as a middleman in sanction of loans. The relevant paras thereof are
    extracted below:
           “Charge Sheet:
           During the year 2007-2008, when you were working as a
           messenger in Agriculture Development Branch, Ramnagar,
           there were serious irregularities in the sanction and
           disbursement of loans to the customers mentioned in the
           following table in the branch, in which there are serious
           allegation of your involvement.
1090                                                     [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                       Supreme Court Reports



         Sl.    Name (Mr)             Account no.     Loan Amount
         No.                                          (Rs)
         01     Fakruddin             30287568733     50,000.00
         02     Bali Yadav            30337461081     40,000.00
         03     Arun Kumar            30310977071     50,000.00
                Mani Mishra
         04     Chandsi Shah          30358112002     40,000.00
         05     Gharbharan Prasad     30358122134     50,000.00
         06     Krishna Prasad Ram    30358122098     50,000.00

         For your dereliction of duty and for acts & omissions, show
         cause is issued with purpose that why not departmental
         proceeding in terms of service rules of award staff and
         bi-partite settlement dated 10.04.2002, under provisions of
         para (5), sub-para (J & K), amounting to gross misconduct,
         should be initiated against you for the below-mentioned
         charges:
         a)    You were allegedly acting as a middleman in loan
               sanction and disbursement at the branch. You
               are charged of taking illegal gratification from a
               customer of the Bank (Account No. 30287568733,
               30337461081, 30310977071, 30358112002,
               30358122134, 30358122098) in lieu thereof.
         b)    You allegedly used to take loan proposals at
               branches as well as at your residence from the above
               mentioned customers (i.e. Account No. 30287568733,
               30337461081, 30310977071, 30358112002,
               30358122134, 30358122098) for documentation,
               after which only the sanction was possible.
         c)    You remained absent from the branch without
               permission from 20.04.2008 to 25.04.2008 during
               the course of investigation of irregularities, so as
               to deliberately evade the process of investigation.”
    10.1 As emerged from the record, the respondent filed reply to the
         same vide letter dated 12.02.2010, however, finding the same
         to be unsatisfactory, Inquiry Officer was appointed.
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                          1091

             State Bank of India & Others v. Ramadhar Sao


11. During the course of inquiry, the respondent denied the charges and
    sought to defend his case. He even selected a defence counsel. The
    Inquiry Officer recorded evidence of multiple witnesses. The loanees
    of the Bank appeared as departmental witnesses in the Inquiry.
     11.1 PW-1/Fakruddin stated that he was forced to pay ₹ 5000/- to
          the respondent for getting his loan sanctioned without even
          proper documents. Similar were the statements made by PW-2,
          PW-3. PW-4 and PW-5, all of whom had stated about giving
          several thousands to respondent in order to get their loans
          sanctioned. PW-6/Dilip Kumar Mehta, Field Officer merely
          stated about the normal procedure followed for filling the loan
          applications and not what was done in the case in hand. The
          aforesaid process of inquiry clearly established the fact that
          due opportunity of hearing was afforded to the respondent
          during the course of inquiry.
     11.2 After the inquiry report was submitted, following due process
          a show cause notice along with inquiry report was sent to the
          respondent, which was duly received by him. He appeared
          before the Disciplinary Authority on 08.01.2011 and submitted
          as follows:
                “I am innocent. Knowingly or unknowingly whatever
                mistake I have made, please forgive me. One of my
                son is handicapped and one of my daughter is of
                marriageable age. I have always served the Bank
                with utmost satisfaction. I don’t have any other source
                of income.”
     11.3 The aforesaid statement established the fact that indirectly
          the respondent had admitted what he had done. He pleaded
          mercy. As it was a case of corruption, the Disciplinary Authority
          imposed punishment of ‘dismissal from service’ upon the
          respondent.
     11.4 The respondent preferred statutory appeal. He reiterated
          what he had stated earlier during the course of inquiry. Still,
          finding that it was a case of gross misconduct, the Appellate
          Authority, by taking a compassionate view, reduced the penalty
          from ‘dismissal’ to ‘removal from service’ with superannuation
          benefits. In fact, the respondent could be satisfied with a light
1092                                                         [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


           punishment imposed upon him. However, he challenged the
           aforesaid order before the High Court.
12. The apparent reason assigned by the Single Bench is that the
    respondent was a class IV employee. He did not have any power
    to sanction loan. The Bank should have proceeded against other
    officers, which it did not do. It was further opined that the orders
    were passed against the respondent on conjunctures and surmises.
    There was no application of mind by the Disciplinary or the Appellate
    Authority. The Division Bench of the High Court, in an appeal filed
    by the Bank, has not referred to correct facts and upheld the order.
    Instead of referring to the chargesheet, initial show cause notice
    was extracted in the impugned order. The merits were not touched
    and only issue discussed was the objection raised by the appellants
    regarding maintainability of the writ petition filed by the respondent
    before the High Court.
13. The legal position with regard to interference in inquiries or the
    orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority in exercise of powers
    of judicial review is well-settled. This court in SBI’s case (supra)
    observed as under:
           “22. The power of judicial review in the matters of
           disciplinary inquiries, exercised by the departmental/
           appellate authorities discharged by constitutional courts
           under Article 226 or Article 32 or Article 136 of the
           Constitution of India is circumscribed by limits of correcting
           errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest
           injustice or violation of principles of natural justice and
           it is not akin to adjudication of the case on merits as an
           appellate authority which has been earlier examined by
           this Court...”
                                                  (emphasis supplied)

     13.1 Law on the issue, that disciplinary authority is not required to
          record reason in detail if report of inquiry officer, is accepted.
          Reference can be made to judgment of this Court in Boloram
          Bordoloi’s case (supra). Relevant para thereof is extracted
          below:
           11. ... it is well settled that if the disciplinary authority
           accepts the findings recorded by the enquiry officer
[2025] 8 S.C.R.                                                         1093

             State Bank of India & Others v. Ramadhar Sao


            and passes an order, no detailed reasons are required
            to be recorded in the order imposing punishment. The
            punishment is imposed based on the findings recorded in
            the enquiry report, as such, no further elaborate reasons
            are required to be given by the disciplinary authority. As
            the departmental appeal was considered by the Board of
            Directors in the meeting held on 10-12-2005, the Board’s
            decision is communicated vide order dated 21-12-2005
            in Ref. No. LGB/I&V/Appeal/31/02/2005-06. In that view
            of the matter, we do not find any merit in the submission
            of the learned counsel for the appellant that the orders
            impugned are devoid of reasons.”
                                                   (emphasis supplied)

14. It is not the case of the respondent that there was violation of principles
    of natural justice. Meaning thereby, due process was followed during
    the course of inquiry. The Inquiry Officer appreciated the evidence
    led by five loanees who categorically deposed that they had paid
    money to the respondents for coordinating sanction of their loans
    despite their documents being deficit. At the time of recording of his
    statement, PW-6/Dilip Kumar Mehta, Field Officer stated that all the
    accounts were irregular.
     14.1 The opinion expressed by the Single Bench that the finding
          recorded by the Inquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority
          were based on conjuncture and surmises, cannot be legally
          sustained. It is for the reason that if entire evidence is perused,
          there was no error in the findings record. These were based
          on preponderance of probabilities and strict proof of evidence
          beyond reasonable doubt was not required.
     14.2 Another reason assigned by the Single Bench is that the
          respondent has been made the scapegoat and other senior
          officers have not been proceeded against, is also wrong as
          the stand taken by the Bank is that the Branch Manager
          and the Field Officer against whom allegations were leveled
          along with the respondent, were removed from service. It
          was further opined by the Single Bench that the respondent
          being a Class IV employee had no role to play in sanctioning
          and disbursement of loan. The proved charge against the
          respondent was that he was working as a conduit in getting
1094                                                        [2025] 8 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


               the loans sanctioned. We are referring to the findings of the
               Single Bench as Division Bench did not record any reason
               in detail.
     14.3 Further, the fact which has been recorded by the Disciplinary
          Authority, when respondent appeared in response to a show
          cause notice before imposition of penalty, points towards
          the direction where he apparently admitted his guilt and had
          sought mercy. The words stated by him have been extracted
          in para ’11.2’. In fact, leniency was shown by the Appellate
          Authority by reducing the penalty from ‘dismissal’ to ‘removal
          from service’ with superannuation benefits.
15. For the reasons mentioned above, in our opinion, the impugned
    orders passed by the Single Bench and the Division Bench of the
    High Court cannot be legally sustained. The same are liable to be
    set aside. Ordered accordingly. The order passed by the Appellate
    Authority dated 07.12.2012 imposing punishment of ‘removal from
    service’ with superannuation benefits stands restored.
16. The appeal is accordingly allowed with no order as to costs.
17. Pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of with no
    order as to costs

     Result of the case: Appeal allowed.




     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan