Summary
A Deputy Manager (Cash) of State Bank of India was dismissed after a departmental enquiry found that on 06.08.1996 he produced a forged remittance letter in the Branch Manager's name at another branch, introduced a companion as a new cashier, collected Rs. 10 lakhs in cash and never accounted for it; nine witnesses and 41 documents were led. A Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court set aside the dismissal as unproved and granted consequential benefits without back wages; the Division Bench affirmed. The Supreme Court allowed the Bank's appeal: the High Court had reappreciated the evidence like an appellate authority, which judicial review under Articles 226/227 does not permit; the acquittal in the CBI case on benefit of doubt did not affect the enquiry; and dismissal was not disproportionate. The dismissal order was restored.
Issues
- Whether the High Court, in a writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution, may reappreciate the evidence led in a departmental enquiry and set aside a finding of misconduct that rests on some evidence.
- Whether a subsequent acquittal in criminal proceedings on benefit of doubt invalidates a concluded disciplinary proceeding on the same charge.
- Whether dismissal from service for fraudulently withdrawing and misappropriating Rs. 10 lakhs of the Bank's cash is disproportionate.
Provisions considered
- Articles 226 and 227 (judicial review of disciplinary proceedings), Constitution of IndiaJudicial review is confined to the decision-making process: competence of the authority, compliance with the prescribed procedure and natural justice, and whether the finding rests on some evidence or is perverse. The High Court is not a court of appeal, and cannot reappreciate evidence, go into its adequacy or reliability, or correct errors of fact (S. Sree Rama Rao; B.C. Chaturvedi; Shashikant S. Patil; Nemi Chand Nalwaya; P. Gunasekaran; N. Ganga Raj). Here it did precisely that, and its orders suffered from patent illegality. (¶¶ 7.2, 7.3, 8)
Held
- The management proved the complete chain of events — the delinquent got the false letter typed (PW7, whose style matched his, PW1), came to the branch with a man he introduced as the new cashier, submitted the voucher, received the cash inside the vault (PW2, PW3, PW5, PW6), the Branch Manager denied his signature (PW4), and the Rs. 10 lakhs were never deposited. Nothing more was required to establish complicity, and the High Court erred in holding it unproved. (¶¶ 7, 7.1)
- The High Court dealt with the writ petition as if exercising the powers of an appellate authority and reappreciated the evidence, which Articles 226/227 do not permit; where there is some evidence reasonably supporting the conclusion of guilt, it is not the writ court's function to arrive at an independent finding. Interference with findings recorded on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence rendered the High Court's orders patently illegal. (¶¶ 7.2, 7.3, 8)
- Acquittal by the criminal court on benefit of doubt does not render a completed disciplinary proceeding invalid or affect the finding of guilt or punishment; the standards of proof differ, so the same charges and evidence may produce a finding of guilt departmentally and an acquittal criminally. (¶ 9)
- Given the seriousness of the proved charge of misappropriating Rs. 10 lakhs and the modus operandi — using a fabricated document and ensuring that the voucher was signed by the companion introduced as a new cashier so that no record showed his own receipt of the money, revealing a criminal mind — dismissal from service was not disproportionate. (¶ 10)
Result
Appeal allowed; the Karnataka High Court Division Bench judgment of 16.03.2021 in Writ Appeal No. 4220 of 2011 and the Single Judge's judgment of 22.03.2011 quashed and set aside; the Bank's order dismissing the respondent from service on the proved charge restored. No order as to costs.