Page 1

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  263  OF 2013 [Arising out of SLP (Civil) No. 34118 of 2011]

State Bank of India and Ors.   .. Appellant(s)

Versus

Narendra Kumar Pandey     .. Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

K. S. Radhakrishnan, J.

Leave granted.

2. We  are,  in  this  case,  concerned  with  the  legality  of  the  

judgment  of  the  High  Court  setting  aside  an  order  dated  

11.03.1999  passed  by  the  State  Bank  of  India  dismissing  the  

charged officer (respondent) from service in exercise of powers  

conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Page 2

2

3. The charged officer, herein, while he was functioning as the  

Deputy  Manager  of  the  Bank  was  served  with  a  charge-sheet  

dated 15.02.1995 by the Joint Manager (Operations) [Disciplinary  

Authority] stating that while he was posted as officer JMGS-I at  

Government  Business  Branch,  Kanpur,  and  Accountant  and  

officiating Branch Manager at Kalpi  Road (Kanpur) Branch from  

21st May 1985 to 20th October 1987 and 21st October 1987 to 22nd  

May 1991  respectively  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 in deliberate violation of Rules 50(3), 50(4),  

50(9) and 60(2) of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules  

(in short ‘the Service Rules’).    

4. Altogether, 12 charges were framed against him.  Charges  

are given under for easy reference:

Charge No.1

You raised a number of spurious entries by debiting LOCL/LIT  A/c at Kalpi Road Branch, Kanpur and afforded fictitious credit to  the Current Account No.7/12 in the name of Shri O.S. Srivastava  and Savings Bank Account No. 9095 in the name of Shri Surinder

Page 3

3

Kumar.   Both  the  account  holders  were  fictitious/non-existent.  Although  the  account  opening  form  in  the  case  of  Shri  O.S.  Srivastava  is  not  traceable,  it  is  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

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.

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 account  on 28.05.1988 and were withdrawn by you in cash the same day  but you did not purchase the vehicle within a month of availment  of loan as per Bank’s instructions.

Charge No. 4

(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

Page 4

4

getting issued several 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  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.  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 for issue of  these cheque books to account holders is there in the  Branch Books.

Charge No.5

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

You  misutilised  the  Bank’s  funds  by  negotiation  of  fake  instruments as DD on Patna.  These DDs were returned unpaid

Page 5

5

subsequently and the amounts were made good by you either in  cash or through your savings bank account.  

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.

Charge No.8

Although  no  STDR/TDR  existed  in  the  name  of  Shri  O.S.  Srivastava in branch books, you made false noting in the cheque  referred and returned register against the entries in respect of  two  cheques  drawn  by  him  on  his  current  account  to  give  misleading information that Shri Srivastava had STDR/TDR.  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.

Charge No.9

Your  savings  bank  account  no.  5603  shows  numerous  debit/credit transactions (other than salary and allowances) which  you did not explain (sic) for heavy amounts.

GOVERNMENT BUSINESS BRANCH, KANPUR

Charge No.10

Page 6

6

Your  Savings  Bank  Account  No.38  with  Govt.  Business  Branch (Kanpur)  shows frequent  credit  transactions  (both  cash  and  transfer)  other  than  salary  for  heavy  amounts  which  you  could not explain properly.

Charge No.11

In  your  Savings  Bank  Account  No.  38,  while  most  of  the  withdrawals from the account were made by way of withdrawal  forms, you got 4 cheque books issued and utilized approximately  15 cheques only.  You did not advise, how the remaining cheque,  were utilized.  It  is noticed that out of 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  misutilised the facility,  and issued the cheque without funds in  your account.

Charge No.12

(i) You  issued  a  Cheque  no.315083  dated  4.4.86  for  Rs.6030.08 favouring M/s Society Jewellers which was  returned  unpaid  due  to  insufficient  balance  in  your  account  no.38.   On representation  of  the  cheque  on  23.4.86, it was paid after cash deposit of Rs.6,000/- by  you.   Thus,  you  issued  cheque  without  maintaining  sufficient balance in your account.

Page 7

7

(ii) You  issued  cheque  no.  315830  dated  23.6.87  for  Rs.4,061/- favouring M/s Bhagat Ram Jai Narain without  maintaining  sufficient  balance  in  your  savings  Bank  Account No.38.  The cheque could be paid when you  deposited Rs.14,000/- cash on 24.6.87.

(iii) Your such actions were highly prejudicial to the Bank’s  interest and unbecoming of Bank Official.

5. Along with the chargesheet, statements of allegations were  

also annexed.

6. The charged officer was informed that it was decided to hold  

a departmental inquiry against him in terms of Rule 68(2)(ii) of  

the  Service  Rules  read  with  Rule  67  in  support  of  the  above-

mentioned charges.  The charged officer was given 15 days time  

to  submit  his  statement  of  defence.   The  charged  officer  

submitted his reply on 29.03.1995 denying all the charges.  On  

24.03.1995, the charged officer sought permission from the Bank  

for inspection of the relevant documents, which was permitted by  

the Bank on 29.04.1995.  The Disciplinary Authority vide letter  

No. Vig/96/11 dated 08.05.1996 appointed the Inquiring Authority

Page 8

8

to inquire into the charges levelled against the charged officer as  

per the charge 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  preliminary  hearing  on  11.06.1996.  

From  11.06.1996  to  07.11.1997,  the  Inquiring  Authority  

conducted inquiry on 17 dates and many a times the inquiry was  

adjourned on the request  of  the charged officer.   He chose to  

remain absent on as many as 7 dates of hearing.

7. We  find  from  the  records  that  the  Inquiring  Authority  

permitted  the  charged  officer  to  inspect  the  records  in  the  

presence  of  investigating  officer  and  fixed  the  date  on  

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  

opportunity and remained absent on 21.07.1997.  On 06.11.1997,  

the  charged  officer  walked  out  of  the  inquiry.   The  Inquiring

Page 9

9

Authority,  however,  continued  and  concluded  ex  parte  on  

07.11.1997.

8. We notice that the charged officer did not even choose to  

nominate  his  defence  representative  in  spite  of  various  

opportunities  given by the Inquiring Authority.   The presenting  

officer had sent his written brief on 08.12.1997 but no written  

brief was sent by the charged officer.  He was given time upto  

14.01.1998.   The presenting officer  had informed the Inquiring  

Authority  that  a  list  of  bank  documents  was  forwarded to  the  

charged 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  of  the  bank  

documents on those days as well.   The Inquiring Authority had  

written a letter 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 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

Page 10

10

Inquiring Authority had no other alternative but to conduct the  

inquiry ex parte.  The presenting officer then produced original  

documents  before  the  Inquiring  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 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 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  officer,  the  findings  of  the  Inquiring  

Authority etc., decided to dismiss the charged officer from service

Page 11

11

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 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 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 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 the Inquiring Authority could  

not be sustained.  The Court, therefore, allowed the writ petition

Page 12

12

and quashed the impugned 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.

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 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 out that vide letter dated  

30.05.1997, the presenting officer had enclosed the list of bank  

documents and requested the charged officer to 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.

Page 13

13

Learned counsel also pointed out that 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 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  

the  charged  officer  could  have  appealed  to  the  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  calling  for  

interference  by  this  Court.   The  respondent  pointed  out  that  

cogent reasons had been stated by the High Court in setting aside  

the  order  of  dismissal  which  is  unassailable.   Further,  it  was  

pointed out  that  under  Rule  68(2)(ix),  the Inquiry Officer  must  

ensure supply of the list of documents and witnesses relied by

Page 14

14

Bank to support the charges.  There is nothing in the record of  

proceeding  which  would  show  that  the  presenting  officer  had  

produced the list of documents before the Inquiring Authority and  

hence no copy of the same was made available to the charged  

officer as well.  Further, it was also pointed out that the burden is  

on the bank to establish the charges levelled against the charged  

officer which the bank had not discharged and the High Court has  

rightly set aside the order of dismissal.

12. The first  infirmity pointed out by the High Court was that  

charge-sheet did not mention anything about the documents or  

the  witnesses  which/whom  it  proposed  to  rely  to  prove  the  

charges, nor appended any list of documents or witnesses.  The  

presenting officer had also, according to the High Court, failed to  

provide  the  list  of  documents  and  witnesses  to  the  charged  

officer.  Further, the High Court also pointed out that minutes of  

the proceedings would indicate that forty eight more documents  

were produced before the Inquiring Authority and the rest of the  

documents were permitted to be produced on 07.11.1997.  On  

07.11.1997,  thirty  four  more  documents  were  produced  and

Page 15

15

marked as Ex. 51 to 84.  The High Court also pointed out that no  

witness  was examined by the Bank in  support  of  charges and  

hence  to  hold  the  charges  relating  to  Government  Business  

Branch proved was in fact a finding supported with no evidence.  

13. State  Bank  of  India  Officers  Service  Rules  are  framed  in  

exercise of powers conferred under Section 43(1) of State Bank of  

India  Act,  1955.   Chapter  XI  of  the  Service  Rules  deals  with  

conduct, discipline and appeal.  Decision to initiate and procedure  

for disciplinary action is dealt with in Rule 68 of the Service Rules.  

Admittedly, the provision of Rule 68(3) had been complied with  

and the charged officer was given time to file 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:

(a) A  copy  of  the  articles  of  charge  and  statements  of  imputations of misconduct;

Page 16

16

(b) A  copy  of  the  written  statement  of  defence,  if  any,  submitted by the officer;

(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;

(e) Evidence proving the delivery of the articles of charge  under clause (iii);

(f)A copy of the order appointing the “Presenting Officer” in  terms of clause (vi).

14. Rule 68(2)(a) states that the Inquiring Authority shall where  

the  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 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

Page 17

17

charge are proposed to be proved shall  be produced by or 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  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  

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 parte.

17. We  may  in  the  light  of  the  above-mentioned  statutory  

provisions examine the correctness of the order passed by the

Page 18

18

High Court.  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.  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  

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 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  

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

Page 19

19

point out that the charge-sheet need not contain the details of the  

documents  or  the  names  of  the  witnesses  proposed  to  be  

examined to prove the charges or a list to that effect unless there  

is  a  specific  provision  to  that  effect.   Charge-sheet,  in  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.

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 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 make arrangements for the charged official to inspect  

the bank’s documents.  Consequently, the presenting officer vide

Page 20

20

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 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 of  

bank’s  documents  and  witnesses  by  30.06.1997  and  get  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  

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  circumstances,  the  Inquiring  

Authority  had  no  other  alternative  but  to  hold  the  inquiry  ex  

parte.  We are of the view that the Inquiring Authority and the

Page 21

21

presenting officer had followed procedures laid down under Rules  

68(2)(v),  68(2)(ix)(a),  68(2)(viii)  and  68(2)(xix)  of  the  Service  

Rules.

20. We are of the view that the High Court also committed an  

error in holding that since no witness was examined in support of  

charges, it was a case of no evidence.  In an ex parte inquiry, in  

our view, if the charges are borne out from documents kept in the  

normal course of business, no oral evidence is necessary to prove  

those charges.   When the charged officer  does not  attend the  

inquiry,  then  he  cannot  contend  that  the  Inquiring  Authority  

should not have relied upon the documents which were not made  

available or  disclosed to him.   Of  course,  even in  an ex parte  

inquiry,  some  evidence  is  necessary  to  establish  the  charges,  

especially  when  the  charged  officer  denies  the  charges,  

uncontroverted  documentary  evidence  in  such  situation  is  

sufficient to prove the charges.

21. The Inquiring Authority has examined each and every charge  

levelled against the charged officer and the documents produced

Page 22

22

by the presenting 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 of this Court  

reported in  Union of India v. Sardar Bahadur; (1972) 4 SCC  

618 and  R.S. Saini v. State of Punjab and Others; (1999) 8  

SCC 90.  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 allegations raised by the bank and not controverted it is  

always open to the Inquiring Authority to accept the same.   

22. In  Bank of India v. Apurba Kumar Saha ;  (1994) 2 SCC  

615, this court held:

“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 opportunity  of  defending himself  of  the

Page 23

23

charges  levelled  against  him  and  the  disciplinary  proceeding  conducted  against  him  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  

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 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 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  conducted  strictly  in  

accordance with the Service Rules.

Page 24

24

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  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 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. 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 state his 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

Page 25

25

levelled against him but approached the High Court stating that  

the principles of natural justice had been violated.

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 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  of  proof  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.  

Page 26

26

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.

...................................J. (K. S. Radhakrishnan)

...................................J. (Dipak Misra)

New Delhi, January 14, 2013