STATE BANK OF INDIAversusRAM LAL BHASKAR & ANR

                       [2011] 12 S.C.R. 1036


A                      STATE BANK OF INDIA
                                  v.
                   RAM LAL BHASKAR & ANR.
                  (Civil Appeal No. 2930 of 2009)

                        OCTOBER 13, 2011
         [R.V. RAVEENDRAN, A.K. PATNAIK AND H.L.
                          GOKHALE, JJ.]

        Service Law:
c
        State Bank of India Officers' Service Rules, 1992 - r.
  19(3) - Disciplinary proceedings - Charge-sheet issued
  against a Bank Manager alleging various acts of misconduct
  - Initiation of enquiry - Bank Manager dismissed from service
0 after he had already retired from service - Challenged by the
  Bank Manager - Order of dismissal upheld by the appellate
  authority - Writ Petition - Order of dismissal quashed by the
  High Court - On appeal, held: It cannot be said that the order
  of dismissal was illegal and without jurisdiction - Under r.
E 19(3) in case disciplinary proceedings were initiated against
  an officer before he ceased to be in the Bank's service, the
  disciplinary proceedings, at the discretion of the Managing
  Director, could be continued and concluded by the authority
  concerned as if the officer continued to be in service which is
  only for the purpose of the continuance and conclusion of
F such proceedings.
      Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Proceedings
  under - Power of High Court - Held: High Court does not sit
  as an appellate authority over the findings of the disciplinary
G authority - Where the findings of the disciplinary authority are
  supported by some evidence, the High Court does not re-
  appreciate the evidence and come to a different and
  independent finding on the evidence - On facts, the High
  Court re-appreciated the evidence and arrived at the
H                               1036
 STATE BANK OF INDIA v. RAM LAL BHASKAR & 1037
                   ANR.
conclusion that the Bank Manager was not guilty of any        A
misconduct - Thus, the order of the High Court quashing the
dismissal of the Bank Manager, set aside.

     Respondent No.1-Branch Manager of the appellant-
Bank was served with a charge-sheet dated 22.12.1999          B
alleging various acts of misconduct as the Branch
Manager. An enquiry was conducted and the enquiry
officer submitted a report dated 28.09.2000 holding that
four out of the six charges were proved against the
respondent No.1. On 31.01.2000, respondent No. 1 retired
from service. Thereafter, the appointing authority on         C
consideration of the enquiry report, the records of the
enquiry and the submissions made by respondent No.1,
dismissed respondent No. 1 from service by order dated
15.05.2001. The appellate authority also upheld the order
of dismissal. Aggrieved, respondent No. 1 filed a writ        D
petition. The High Court quashed the order of dismissal
as the respondent No.1 had already retired from service,
and directed the appellant to release his arrears of salary
as well as the post retirement benefits. Therefore, the
appellant filed the instant appeal.                           E

    Allowing the appeal, the Court

     HELD: 1.1 In the instant case, the charge-sheet was
issued on 22.12.1999 when the respondent No.1 was in
service and there were clear provisions in Rule 19(3) of F
the State Bank of India Officers' Service Rules, 1992, that
in case disciplinary proceedings under the relevant rules ·
of service have been initiated against an officer before he
ceased to be in the Bank's service by the operation of,
or by virtue of, any of the rules or the provisions of the G
rules, the disciplinary proceedings may, at the discretion
of the Managing Director, be continued and concluded
by the authority by which the proceedings were initiated
in the manner provided for in the rules as if the officer
                                                              H
    1038    SUPREME COURT REPORTS           [2011] 12 S.C.R.


  A continues to be in service, so however, that he shall be
    deemed to be in service only for the purpose of the
    continuance and conclusion of such proceedings. There
    is no merit in the contention that the enquiry and the
    order of dismissal were illegal and without jurisdiction.
· B [Para 6) [1042-E-H; 1043-A-B]

       1.2 The enquiry officer found that charges no. 1, 2, 4
  an.d 6 had been proved against the respondent No. 1.
  While arriving at these findings on the four charges
  proved against the respondent No. 1, the enquiry officer
C considered a number of documents and also considered
  the documents produced on behalf of the respondent No.
  1. The findings of the enquiry officer were based on
  evidence and the appointing authority had agreed with
  the findings of the enquiry officer. [Para 7) [1043-C-D]
D
       1.3 In a proceeding under Article 226 of the
  Constitution, the High Court does not sit as an appellate
  authority over the findings of the disciplinary authority
  and so long as the findings of the disciplinary authority
E are supported by some evidence, the High Court does not
  re-appreciate the evidence and come to a different and
  independent finding on the evidence. Yet by the
  impugned judgment the High Court re-appreciated the
  evidence and arrived at the conclusion that the findings
F recorded by the enquiry officer are not substantiated by
  any material on record and the allegations leveled against
  the respondent No.1 do not constitute any misconduct.
  Therefore, the impugned order of the High Court is set
  aside. [Paras 8 and 9) [1044-A-C]
G        UCO Bank and Anr. v. Rajinder Lal Capoor (2007) 6
    SCC 694: 2007(7) SCR 543; State of Andhra Pradesh and
    Ors. v. Sree Rama Rao AIR 1963 SC 1723: 1964 SCR 25 -
    referred to.

H
  STATE BANK OF INDIA v. RAM LAL BHASKAR & 1039
                    ANR.
                      Case Law Reference:                         A
    2007 (7) SCR 543             Referred to         Para 6
    1964 SCR 25                  Referred to         Para 7

    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.               B
2930 of 2009.

      From the Judgment and Order dated 12.04.2006 of the
Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in
Civil Misc. Petition No. 8415 of 2003.
                                                                  c
      Amarendra Sharan, Anil Kumar Sangal and D.P. Mohanty
for the Appellant.

    M.A. Krishna Moorthy for the Respondents.

    The Judgement of the Court was delivered by                   D

    A. K. PATNAIK, J. 1. This is an appeal against the order
dated 12.04.2006 of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High
Court in Civil Miscellaneous Writ Petition No. 8415 of 2003.
                                                                  E
      2. The facts very briefly are that the respondent no.1
worked as a Branch Manager of the appellant-Bank at Sirsaganj
Branch. He was served with a charge-sheet dated 22.12.1999
alleging various acts of misconduct as the Branch Manager of
Sirsaganj Branch. Thereafter, an enquiry was conducted and
                                                                  F
the enquiry officer submitted a report dated 28.09.2000 holding
that four out of the six charges were proved against the
respondent no.1. The charges No .1 , 2, 4 and 6 which were
proved against the respondent no.1 in the "enquiry are as
follows:
                                                                  G
    "SI.No.                      CHARGES
      1.      He authorized opening of a Savings Bank Account
              No.18776 on 31st March 1999 in the name of
              "Trailokya Bauddha Mahasanga Sahayake Gane"         H
    1040        SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2011] 12 S.C.R.


A                a religious body at he Sirsaganj Branch without
                 completing the formalities connected with opening
                 of new accounts of such societies.

           2.    He debited Savings Bank Account No.18776 of
                 "Trailokya Bauddha Mahasanga Sahayaka Gane"
B
                 with Rs.one lac on 04.08.1999 on forged signatures
                 of the depositor and credited the amount to his
                 Savings Bank Account No.101 /18360 at the
                 Branch. The debit and credit vouchers have been
                 passed by him.
c
         4.      Zonal Office vide S. L. No. P&C/483 dated
                 08.12.1998 advised the Branch regarding posting
                 of Field Officer/Manager (Agri) at the Branch and
                 handing over the relative charge to the concerned
D                persons. He intentionally did not make
                 arrangements for handing over the charge of Field
                 Officer/Manager (Agri) to the concerned officers
                 despite Zonal instructions.

                 Further, the loan applications received at the
E
                 Branch were sanctioned by him without the
                 recommendations of Field Officer/Manager (Agri).

         6.      He claimed false T.A. Bill viz. Rs.150/-for going to
                 various villages on 15.05.1999 as included in his
F                monthly Bill for Rs.1,275/- for the month of May
                 1999 and at the same time, also claimed Rs.275/
                 - as TA Bill for 15.05.1999 for visiting Zonal Office,
                 Agra thus he lodged false Bill for his official work."

G A copy of the enquiry report was served on the respondent no.1
  and the respondent no.1 was given an opportunity to submit his
  representation against the findings of the enquiry officer. The
  appointing authority then considered the enquiry report and the
  records of the enquiry and the submissions made by the
H respondent no.1 and imposed the penalty of dismissal from
  STATE BANK OF INDIA v. RAM LAL BHASKAR & 1041
            ANR. [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]

service by order dated 15.05.2001. The respondent no.1 filed         A
an appeal against the order of the appointing authority, but the
appellate authority dismissed the appeal by order dated
09.03.2002. The respondent no.1 filed a Review Petition, but
the reviewing committee also dismissed the Review Petition
by order dated 20.12.2002.                                           B

     3. Aggrieved, the respondent no.1 filed Civil Miscellaneous
Writ Petition No. 8415 of 2003 and the High Court, after hearing
the learned counsel for the parties, allowed the Writ Petition and
quashed the order of dismissal passed by the appointing
authority as well as the order passed by the appellate authority     C
and, as the respondent no.1 had already retired from service,
directed the appellant to release his arrears of salary as well
as the post retirement benefits.

     4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there       D
were charges of grave misconduct against the respondent no.1
and four of the six charges had been proved in the enquiry. He
submitted that the findings of the enquiry officer on the four
charges proved against the respondent no.1 were based on
relevant material and these findings had also been confirmed         E
by the appellate and reviewing authorities. He submitted that
contrary to the settled position of law that the High Court, while
exercising its powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the
Constitution, should not interfere with the finding in the
depa'rtmental enquiry so long as it is based on some evidence        F
in the impugned order, the High Court has interfered with
findings in the enquiry and has held that the respondent no.1
was not guilty of the charges. By the impugned order, the High
Court has also quashed the order of dismissal and has directed
release of the arrears of salary and post retirement benefits of     G
the respondent no.1.
    5. Learned counsel for the respondent no.1, on the other
hand, supported the impugned order of the High Court and
submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned order of the
High Court. He further submitted that in any case the                H
    1042     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2011] 12 S.C.R.


A respondent no.1 had retired from service on 31.01.2000, and
  though the charge-sheet was served on him on 22.12.1999
  when he was still in service, the enquiry report was served on
  him by letter dated 28.09.2000 and he was dismissed from
  service on 15.05.2001 after he had retired from service. He
B submitted that after the retirement of the respondent no.1, the
  appellant had no jurisdiction to continue with the enquiry against
  the respondent no.1. In support of this contention, he cited the
  decision of this Court in UCO Bank and Another v. Rajinder
  Lal Capoor [(2007) 6 SCC 694].
c        6. We have perused the decision of this Court in UCO
    Bank and Another v. Rajinder Lal Capoor (supra) and we find
   that in the facts of that case the delinquent officer had already
   superannuated on 01.11.1996 and the charge-sheet was
   issued after his superannuation on 13.11.1998 and this Court
D held that the delinquent officer having been allowed to
   superannuate, the charge-sheet, the enquiry report and the
   orders of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority
   must be held to be illegal and without jurisdiction. In the facts
  of the present case, on the other hand, we find that the charge-
E sheet was issued on 22.12.1999 when the respondent no.1 was
   in service and there were clear provisions in Rule 19(3) of the
  State Bank of India Officers' Service Rules, 1992, that in case
  disciplinary proceedings under the relevant rules of service
  have been initiated against an officer before he ceased to be
F in the Bank's service by the operation of, or by virtue of, any of
  the rules or the provisions of the rules, the disciplinary
  proceedings may, at the discretion of the Managing Director,
  be continued and concluded by the authority ,by which the
  proceedings were initiated in the manner provided for in the
G rules as if the officer continues to be in service, so however,
  that he shall be deemed to be in service only for the purpose
  of the continuance and conclusion of such proceedings. We
  may mention here that a similar provision was also relied on
  behalf of UCO Bank in UCO Bank and Another v. Rajinder
H Lal Capoor (supra) in regulation 20(3)(iii) of the UCO Bank
  STATE BANK OF INDIA v. RAM LAL BHASKAR & 1043
            ANR. [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]

Officers Employees Service Rules, 1979, but this Court held              A
that the aforesaid regulation could be invoked only when the
disciplinary proceedings had been initiated prior to the
delinquent officer ceased to be in service. Thus, the aforesaid
decision of this Court in UCO Bank and Another v. Rajinder
Lal Capoor (supra) does not support the respondent no.1 and              B
there is no merit in the contention of the counsel for the
respondent no.1 that the enquiry and the order of dismissal
were illegal and without jurisdiction.

      7. Coming now to the contention of the appellant, we find
that the enquiry officer has found that charges no. 1, 2, 4 and 6        C
had been proved against the respondent no.1. While arriving
at these findings on the four charges proved against the
respondent no.1, the enquiry officer has considered a number
of documents marked as exhibits and has also considered the
documents produced on behalf of the respondent no.1 and                  D
marked a~ exhibits. The findings of the enquiry officer were
based on evidence and the appointing authority had agreed
with the findings of the enquiry officer. This Court has held in
State of Andhra Pradesh and Others v. Sree Rama Rao (AIR
1963 SC 1723) "The High Court is not constituted in a                    E
proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution a Court of
appeal over the decision of the authorities holding a
departmental enquiry against a public servant: it is concerned
to determine whether the enquiry is held by an authority
competent in that behalf, and according to the procedure                 F
prescribed in that behalf, and whether the rules of natural justice
are not violated. Where there is some evidence, which the
authority entrusted with the duty to hold the enquiry has accepted
and which evidence may reasonably support the conclusion that
the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, it is not the function   G
of the High Court in a petition for a writ under Article 226 to
review theevidence and to arrive at an independent finding on
the evidence."

     8. Thus, in a proceeding under Article 226 of the                   H
    1044     SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2011] 12 S.C.R.

A Constitution, the High Court does not sit as an appellate
  authority over the findings of the disciplinary authority and so
  long as the findings of the disciplinary authority are supported
  by some evidence the High Court does not reappreciate the
  evidence and come to a different and independent finding on
s the evidence. This position of law has been reiterated in several
  decisions by this Court which we need not refer to, and yet by
  the impugned judgment the High Court has re-appreciated the
  evidence and arrived at the conclusion that the findings
  recorded by the enquiry officer are not substantiated by any
c material on record and the allegations leveled against the
  respondent no.1 do not constitute any misconduct and that the
  respondent no.1 was not guilty of any misconduct.

        9. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order of the High
    Court and allow the appeal with no order as to costs.
D
    N.J.                                         Appeal allowed.