GM. (OPERATIONS) S.B.I. &ANR. versus R. PERIYASAMY

Citation: [2014] 14 S.C.R. 929 · Decided: 10-12-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: JASTI CHELAMESWAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

.[2014] 14 S.C.R. 929 
GM. (OPERATIONS) s .. s.1 &ANR. 
v. 
R. PERIYASAMY 
(Civil Appeal No.10942 of 2014) 
A 
DECEMBER 10, 2014 
B 
[J. CHELAMESWAR AND S. A. BOBDE, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Dismissal - Bank employee - Charged with being 
accountable for shortage detected in the currency chest and c 
with excessive outside borrowings in violation of service rules 
- Found guilty by disciplinary authority and was terminated 
from service - Order upheld in departmental appeal - Writ 
petition by the delinquent-Allowed by Single Judge of High 
Courl and further upheld by Division Bench of High Court - o 
On appeal, held: The High Court, in exercise of jurisdiction 
u/Arl. 226 of Constitution was not justified in going into the 
question of adequacy of evidence - High Court, therefore, 
was not correct in setting aside the dismissal order-However, 
in the facts of the case employee-Bank directed to pay a sum E 
of Rs. 3 lakhs to the delinquent-employee - State Bank of 
India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules, 1975 - r.49(h) -
Constitution of India -Art. 226. 
Disciplinary proceeding- Standard of proof- Held: The 
standard of proof in disciplinary pro_ceeding is that of. F. 
preponderance of probabilities arid not proof beyond 
reasonable doubt- Evidence. 
' 
Maxims - 'Omnia praesumuntur rite esse acta' -
Applicability of. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. The Single Judge committed an error in 
approaching the issue by asking whether the findings 
have been arrived on acceptable evidence or not and 
929 
G 
H 
930 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2014] 14 S.C.R. 
A coming to the conclusion that there was no acceptable 
evidence, and that in any case the evidence was not 
sufficient. In doing so, the Single Judge lost sight of the 
fact that the permissible enquiry was whether there is 
no evidence on which the eriquiry officer could have 
B arrived at the findings or whether there was any 
perversity in the findings. Whether the evidence was 
acceptable or not, was a wrong question, unless it raised 
a question of admissibility. Also, the Single Judge was 
not entitled to go into the question of the adequacy of 
c evidence and come to the conclusion that the evidence 
was not sufficient to hold the respondent guilty. 
[Para 9][939-D-G] 
• 
2. The Single Judge wrongly observed that the 
concept of preponderance of, probabilities is alien to 
D domestic enquiries. A disciplinary proc~eding is not a 
criminal 'trial and thus, the standard of proof required is 
that of preponderance of probabilities and not proof 
beyond reasonable doubt. A disciplinary authority is 
expected to prove the charges leveled against a bank-
E officer on the preponderance of probabilities and not on 
proof beyond reasonable doubt. [Para 10][939-G-H; 
940-A-B] 
F 
G 
Union of India v. Sardar Bahadur (1972) 4 SCC 
618 ; State Bank of India & ors. v. Ramesh Dinkar 
Punde (2006) 7 SCC 212 : 2006 (4) Suppl. 
SCR 511 ; State Bank of India v. Narendra Kumar 
Pandey(2013) 2 SCC 740: 2013 (3) SCR 1109; 
Union Bank of India v. Vishwa Mohan (1998) 4 
SCC 310 ; Commissioner of Police New Delhi & 
Anr. v. Mehar Singh (2013) 7 SCC 685 ; R.P. 
Kapur v. Union of/ndia AIR 1964 SC 787 : 1964 
SCR 431 - relied on. 
• 
3. In administrative law,' it is a settled principle that 
H the onus. of proof rests upon the party alleging the 
GM. (OPERATIONS) S.B.I &ANR. v. R. PERIYASAMY 
931 
invalidity of an order. There is a presumption that the. A 
decision or executive order is properly and validly made, 
a p.resumption expressed in the maxim omnia 
praesumuntur rite esse acta which means 'all things are 
presumed to be done in due form. [Para 10][941-C-D] 
Minister of National Revenue v. Wright's Canadian 
B 
Ropes Ltd. (1947) AC 109 at 122 ; Associated 
. Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury 
Cpn. (1948) 1 KB 223 at 228 ; Fawcett Properties 
Ltd. v. Buckingham County Council (1959) Ch. 
543 at 575, affirmed (1961) AC 636 ; Point of Ayr 
C 
Collieries Ltd. v. Lloyd - George (1943) 2 All ER 
546 - referred to. 
4. It was not permissible for the High Court to 
proceed to draw an inference that there was a failure of 0 
natural justice in the bank having denied certain 
documents, in absence of proof that any such letter 
demanding certain documents was received by the 
appellant-Bank. An administrative authority such as the 
appellant, cannot be put to proof of the facts or 
conditions on which the validity of its order must depend, E 
unless the respondent-employee ca

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