GANESH SANTA RAM SIRUR versus STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ANR.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 101 · Decided: 17-11-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

) 
-; 
--
GANESH SANTA RAM SIRUR 
v. 
ST A TE BANK OF INDIA AND ANR. 
NOVEMBER 17, 2004 
[K.G. BALAKRISHNAN AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
State Bank of India (Supervisory Stafj) Rules, 1972 : 
Rule 51 (2)-Departmental enquiry-Appeal-Delinquent employee 
filed appeal against punishment of reduction of salary by one stage-The 
appeal was time-bared-Rule 51 (2) expressly provided for condonation of 
delay-Appellate authority considered the appeal on merits and enhanced 
A 
B 
c 
the punishment to removal from service-Correctness of-Held: It has to D 
be presumed that delay, if any, was condoned by the appellate authority-
Hence, the delinquent employee thereafter could not contend that the appeal 
should not have been considered on merits but should have been dismissed 
on the ground of limitation-State Bank of India Officers Service Rules, 
1992, R. 69(5). 
Rule 34(3)(1)-Departmental enquiry-Penalty-Enhancement of-By 
appellate authority-Bank manager sanctioned loan to his spouse in 
contravention of R. 34(3)(1)-Punishment of reduction of salary by one 
stage imposed on him-However, appellate authority enhanced the punishment 
to removal from service-While so enhancing, the appellate authority 
considered one of the unproved charges-Correctness of-Held: The charge 
against the bank m<;mager was more serious and grave than the unproved 
charge-However, the observation made by the appellate authority on the 
unproved charge was only a passing observation-Hence, no interference 
with the decision of the appellate authority is called for. 
Rule 34(3)(1)-Departmental enquiry-Penalty-Bank manager 
sanctioned loan to his spouse in her maiden name in contravention of R. 
34(3)(1)-But the cheque/or the loan was not encashed-Penalty of removal 
from service imposed-Validity of-Held: The decision to sanction loan was 
E 
F 
G 
not an honest decision-R. 34(3)(1) prohibiting the bank manager from . H 
101 
102 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A sanctioning loan to his wife or his relative or to any partner is a rule 
of integrity-Hence, punishment of removal from service awarded to the 
bank manager was just and proper-State Bank of India Officers Service 
Rules, 1992, R. 67(9). 
B 
State Bank of India Officers Service Rules, 1992: 
Rules 69(2) & (5)-Departmental enquiry-Penalty-Enhancement 
of-Natural justice-Principles-Applicability of-Held: Cannot be put in 
~ · 
a straitjacket-Their applicability depends upon the context and the facts 
and circumstances of each case-The objective is to ensure a fair hearing-
C Show cause notice issued to the delinquent employee clearly showed that 
the appellate authority had thoroughly comidered his detailed submissions 
and thereafter enhanced the penalty-There was total application of mind 
on the part of the appellate authority-Hence, enhancement of penalty not 
interfered with. 
D 
The appellant while working as a bank manager of the respondent-
bank sanctioned a loan to his spouse in her maiden name in contravention 
of Rule 34(3)(1) of the State Bank of India (Supervisory Staff) Rules. 
1972. But the cheque for the loan, which was sanctioned, had not been 
encashed. Seven charges were framed against the appellant. Only one 
E pertaining to grant of loan was proved against the appellant. The 
punishing/appointing authority imposed the punishment of reduction in 
salary by one stage, on the appellant. 
The appellant filed an appeal against the said punishment before 
F the appellate authority who proposed to enhance the penalty imposed 
upon the appellant to an order of dismissal and accordingly· a show 
cause notice under Rule 69(2) of the State Bank of India (Supervisory 
Staff) Rules, 1972 was issued to the appellant. The appellant submitted 
his detailed reply to the proposed order of dismissal. However, the 
appellate authority imposed the punishment of removal from service on 
G the appellant instead of dismissal as proposed earlier. The High Court 
dismissed the appellant's writ petition. Hence the appeal. 
On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that the appellate . ..-
authority should not have considered the appeal on merits as it was 
H time-barred: that the appellate authority had considered the charge 
/ 
-
GANESH SANT A RAM SIR UR v. S.B.I. 
103 
which had not been proved while coming to the conclusion that the A 
punishment was required to be enhanced to one of removal from service. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The appellant wa

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.