STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR versus NEMI CHAND NALWAYA

Citation: [2011] 3 S.C.R. 589 · Decided: 01-03-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2011) 3 S.C.R. 589 
STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR 
v. 
NEMI CHAND NALWAYA 
(Civil Appeal No. 5861 of 2007) 
MARCH 01, 2011 
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.] 
Service law: 
A 
B 
Dismissal - On ground of willful dereliction of duty -
c 
Departmental enquiry against bank employee on the 
a/legation that he allowed fraudulent withdrawal of certain 
amount by a person impersonating as account holdfH. 
resulting in loss to the bank - Dismissal from service -: 
However, employee acquitted in a criminal case in regard to 
0 
the allegations which were the subject matter of the 
departmental enquiry on the ground that the charges were not 
proved beyond doubt - Order of dismissal challenged on the 
ground of acquittal in the criminal case - High Court set aside 
the order of dismissal and issued direction for re-instatement E 
with full backwages and consequential benefits - On appeal, 
held: Order passed by the High Court not justified - Loss of 
confidence in an employee is an important and relevant factor 
- Bank is justified in contending that not only employees who 
are dishonest, but those who are guilty of gross negligence, 
are not fit to continue in its service - High Court interfered with 
!= 
the said finding without expressly holding that the said finding 
of guilt was effoneous - It proceeded as if it was sitting in 
appeal over the departmental inquiry and interfered with the 
finding on a vague assumption - Order of acquittal passed 
by the criminal court by giving the employee the benefit of G 
doubt, would not in any way render a completed disciplinary 
proceedings invalid nor affect the validity of the finding of guilt 
or consequential punishment - Standard of proof required in 
criminal proceedings and the departmental enquiries are 
589 
H 
590 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011) 3 S.C.R. 
A different - Thus, order of the High Court is set aside - Finding 
of guilt recorded by the disciplinary authority is upheid, 
however, the punishment is modified from 'dismissal' to 
'compulsory retirement'. 
8 
Departmental enquiries - Interference with - Held: 
Courts will not interfere with findings of fact recorded in 
departmental enquiries, except where such findings are based 
on no evidence or where they are clearly perverse - Test to 
find out perversity is to see whether a tribunal acting 
reasonably could have arrived at such conclusion or finding, 
C on the material on record - Courts would interfere if principles 
of natural justice or statutory regulations have been violated 
or if the order is found to be arbitrary, capricious, ma/a fide 
or based on extraneous considerations. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
B. C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India 1995 (6) SCC 749; 
Union of India vs. G. Gunayuthan 1997 (7) SCC 463; Bank 
of India vs. Degala Suryanarayana 1999 (5) SCC 762; High 
Court of Judicature at Bombay vs. Shahsi Kant S Patil 2001 
(1) sec 416 - relied on. 
Case Law Reference: 
1995 (6) sec 149 
1997 (7) sec 463 
1999 (5) sec 162 
2001 (1) sec 416 
Relied on. 
Relied on. 
Relied on. 
Relied on. 
Para 6 
Para 6 
Para 6 
Para 6 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
5861 of 2007. 
From the Judgment & Order dated 4.4.2006 of the High 
Court of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jodhpur in D.B. Civil 
Special Appeal No. 439 of 1998. 
Anil Kumar Sangal, Sneha Kalita, D.P. Mohanty for the 
H Appellant. 
STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR v. NEMI 
591 
· CHAND NALWAYA 
P.S. Patwalia, Priyanka Mathur Sardana, A. Sumathi for 
A 
the Respondent. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered 
ORDER 
R. V. RAVEENDRAN J. The respondent was employed 
as a clerk in the Kalindri branch of the appellant Bank. He was 
issued a charge-sheet dated 30.8.1988. The two charges 
against him are extracted below : 
B 
c 
(i) On 14.10.1987, you disclosed the balance of SB 
Account No.1025 of Shri Dharamchand Nathaji lying in in-
operative account to an unidentified person posing himself 
as the said account holder though the person was not 
having even Pass Book of that account. This disclosure 
of secrecy led a fraudulent withdrawal of Rs.6,000/- from 
D 
the said account thereby putting the bank into loss. 
(ii) On 14.10.1987, you have advised Shri l.M. Rawal, the 
counter clerk handling Savings Banks ledgers to transfer 
the balance lying in account number 1025 in the name of 
E 
Shri Dharam Chand Nathaji from in-operative Savings 
Bank ledger to that of operative ledgers without first 
obtaining the permission of the Branch Manager whi

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