Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2930 OF 2009

State Bank of India    …    Appellant

Versus

Ram Lal Bhaskar & Anr.                 … Respondents

J U D G M E N T

A. K. PATNAIK, J.

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.  

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 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:

“Sl.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” 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”  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.

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  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  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  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,  

2

Agra thus he lodged false Bill for his official work.”     

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 respondent no.1 and imposed the  

penalty of dismissal from service by order dated 15.05.2001.  

The respondent no.1 filed 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.  

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 and, as the respondent  

no.1 had already retired from service, directed the appellant  

3

to release his arrears of salary as well as the post retirement  

benefits.   

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there  

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  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  

departmental  enquiry  so  long  as  it  is  based  on  some  

evidence  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 the respondent no.1.  

4

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 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 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].

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  held  that  the  delinquent  officer  having  been  

5

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-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  

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  

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   

Lal Capoor (supra) in regulation 20(3)(iii) of the UCO Bank  

6

Officers Employees Service Rules, 1979, but this Court held  

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 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 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 marked as 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):

7

“The  High  Court  is  not  constituted  in  a  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  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 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.”

8. Thus,  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  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.  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  

8

officer are not substantiated by any 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.   

.……………………….J.                                                            (R. V. Raveendran)

………………………..J.                                                            (A. K. Patnaik)

………………………..J.                                                            (H. L. Gokhale)

New Delhi, October 13, 2011.    

9