STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. versus NARENDRA KUMAR PANDEY

Citation: [2013] 3 S.C.R. 1109 · Decided: 14-01-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 3 S.C.R. 1109 
STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. 
v. 
NARENDRA KUMAR PANDEY 
(Civil' Appeal No: 263 of 2013) 
JANUARY 14, 2013. 
[K. S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
A 
B 
. State Bank of India Officers' Service Rules -:- rr. 68(2)(v), c 
68(2)(ix)(a), 68(2) (viii) and 68(2)(xix) - Departmental ex parte 
inquiry - Dismissal from service - Writ petition - High Court 
set aside dismissal order - Held: Delinquent officer rightly 
dismissed from service - Departmental inquiry was held as 
per the procedure laid down under Service Rules - In the 
0 
absence of procedural irregularity, interference of High Court 
u/Art. 226 of Constitutio.n not correct - Constitution of India, 
1950 - Art.226. 
Departmental inquiry - Degree of proof - Disciplinary 
authority is expected to prove the changes on preponderance 
E 
of probability and not on proof beyond. reasonable doubt. 
Departmental proceedings were initi.ated against the · 
respondent, an officer of the appellant-Ba.nk for violating 
the rules of State Bank of India Officers Service Rules. 
F 
The respondent-officer did not participate in the inquiry 
proceedings and in fact walked out of the inquiry. 
Therefore,· the ln.quiry Authority concluded the 
proc::eedings ex-parte. The Disci.plinary Authority 
recommended for dismissal of the charged officer. The 
G 
appointing authority decided to disrniss the charged 
offic::er from service in terms of r.67(j) rlw. r.68 of the 
Service Rules. The charged officer instead of availing the 
remedy of statutory appeal provided ulr.69 of Service 
1109 
H 
1110 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 3 S.C.R. 
A Rules, filed writ petition u/Art. 226 of the Constitution. 
High Court allowed the petition holding that inquiry was 
held in violation of r.68(2)(ix) as the Presenting Officer 
had failed to discharge his obligation of making available 
the list of all the documents and witnesses to the charged 
B officer. Hence the present appeal by the Bank. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 Appellant-Bank in the present case has 
succeeded in establishing the charges levelled against 
C the delinquent officer and he was rightly dismissed from 
service which called for no interference by the High Court 
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. [Para 26] 
[1128-F-G] 
0 
1.2. The charged officer, admittedly, did not choose 
to nominate his defence representative in spite of several 
opportunities given by the Inquiring Authority nor had he 
submitted any written statement to the Inquiring Authority. 
Neither the charged officer nor any defence 
E representative appeared before the Inquiring Authority. 
The arguments that were raised before the High Court, 
of non-compliance of the procedure, could have been 
raised by the charged officer before the Inquiring 
Authority, but the same was not done and he had not co-
operated with the inquiry proceedings. In the said 
F circumstances, the Inquiring Authority was entitled to 
hold the enquiry ex parte as provided under Rule 
68(2)(xix) of State Bank of India Officers Service Rules. 
[Para 17) [1124-D-F] 
G 
2. The High Court has committed an error in holding 
that the charge-sheet should have mentioned about the 
details of the documents and the names of the witnesses 
which the Bank proposed to examine and a list to that 
effect should have been appended to the charge-sheet. 
H The charge-sheet need not contain the details of the 
STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. v. NARENDRA 1111 
r; :J.2' '':~'./:, 
Kt.:fMA~'PANDE¥0.J 3M3>Fl~2 
<::'t~ 
documents or the names of the witnesses proposed to 
A 
b~
1~xam1n1id
1 tol>'r'oO& tlie%'1arges1ar1sriist~to ittlai: ef'.re~t A 
unless there is a specific provision totthatreffE!etl :(jha·rgij~ 
~~,etiLSJl\O~f>~?SP~~~e9,' tq ~~;~J:~~RJ:d\ot1,jyiQ_~~f~· 1 Fair. 
procedure do~s not ~ean giving of ~oP.i,~J tR.¥iJ~~ 
documents or hst of witnesses along with the charge-
B 
sh"'e'~'t'. ,C)ffeou·~se,d s't~teitier'l't <'4,f sa:negciti~iiE; fias to 8 
a~c·company"l~iUP dharg~:s11~et:cwh~ni1r"equ:t.rett1:by.th.e 
SeVvfoe'1RU:les'! tihCler! the rclrcbmstaneel>:idf>thel case; the 
IRquirlngtAutffor1f'y1 na\::I no rbther;-alt~rnathieibuttta;itrold 
thei inquiryllex )>art~j 'The~ ilnquiritig Auttlority)nrid, :th.e 
c 
Pres~ntrrtg·rofficer'lladrfol'foY/id;1protedures;o1arorid.;.own 
~) 
under" Rufes~68(2)(v),i68(2)(ix)(a},1;68(2)(Viri))i:lnd;;68(2.)1xHc:~ 
of the Service Rules. [Paras 18 and ff9Jl't124:;µ~H; d1lZ~· 
~\~.j-!;~
1 1~~-:_1-~] t,,\i:;(', '

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