STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. versus RAMESH DINKAR PUNDE

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 511 · Decided: 11-08-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.K. SEMA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

ST A TE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
RAMESH DINKAR PUNDE 
AUGUST 11, 2006 
[H.K. SEMA AND A.K. MATHUR, JJ.] 
B 
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226; 
Judicial Review-Dismissal order-Appreciation of evidence-Scope-
Held, not akin to adjudication on merit by re-appreciating the evidence as C 
an Appellate Authority. 
The respondent, at the relevant time, was posted as Manager, Personnel 
Banking Division, Palghar Branch of the appellant bank. He introduced one 
Shri Kishor Bidaye and Shri D.B. Angane to the Branch Manager Jogeshwari D 
(W) Branch and got a current account opened in the name of Shri Bidaye. He 
had also introduced the said current account by giving his old Andheri address 
at Bombay as the address of Bid aye. A cheque was issued in favour of the 
State Bank of India, which was to be invested in the name of the Trust/Board. 
However, the respondent insisted that the funds were meant for Bidaye and 
Angane and thereby, induced the Branch Manger to accept the Trust funds E 
as Term Deposits and issue TDRs in the names of Bidaye and Angane. The 
respondent also ensured sanctioning of overdraft facility against the STD Rs. 
so issued. It is also alleged that the respondent exerted pressure to grant 
overdraft on the same day ofremittance offunds and emphatically stated _that 
it would be his responsibility if anything went wrong. A complaint was made F 
by a Trust regarding Term Deposit Receipts being issued in the name ofBidaye 
and granting overdraft facilities to him on the basis of such TDR. The 
appellant's bank, thereafter, initiated a Departmental Inquiry. The Inquiry 
Officer, after making a detailed inquiry, submitted its report holding that the 
charges against the respondent stand proved. Thereafter, the Disciplinary 
Authority dismissed the respondent from the services of the Bank. Aggrieved G 
thereby, the respondent filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority, which 
was rejected Aggrieved, the respondent preferred Writ Petition before the 
High Court of Judicature at Bombay praying inter-alia to quash and set aside 
the order of dismissal passed by the Disciplinary Authority and also the order 
511 
H 
512 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2006] SUPP. 4 S.C.R. 
A passed by the Appellate Authority. During the pendency of the Writ Petition 
before the High Court, it appears that pursuant to the observations made by 
the High Court, the petitioner bank reduced the punishment of dismissal to 
removal. The High Court, on re-appreciation of evidence, reversed the finding 
of the Inquiry Officer and set aside the orders of the Disciplinary Authority 
B and Appellate Authority and directed the appellant to reinstate the respondent 
with all consequential benefits including that of back wages, to be paid within 
a period of three months. Hence, the appeal. 
It was contended by the respondent that leniency may be shown to the 
respondent having regard to long years of service rendered by the respondent 
C to the Bank. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. I. It is impermissible for the High Court to re-appreciate the 
evidence which had been considered by the Inquiry Officer-a Disciplinary 
D Authority and the Appellate Authority. Its jurisdiction is circumscribed and 
confined to correct errors of law or procedural error, if any, resulting in 
manifest misc.arriage of justice or violation of principles of natural justice. 
Judicial review is not akin to adjudication on merit by re-appreciating the 
evidence as an Appellate Authority. (517-C; 516-C-DI 
E 
Govt. of A.P. and Ors. v. Mohd Nasrullah Khan, [2006) 2 SCC 373; 
Union of India v. Sardar Bahadur, (1972) 2 SCR 218; Union oflndiav. Parma 
Nanda, [19891 2 SCC 177 and Union of India v. Vishwa Mohan, [1998) 4 
sec 310, referred to. 
2. I. Bank officer holds a position of trnst where thereby honesty and 
F integrity are iabuilt requirements of functioning. In the banking business 
absolute devotion, diligence, integrity and honesty need to be preserved by 
every bank employee and in particular the bank officer so that the confidence 
of the public/depositors is not impaired. It is for this reason that when a bank 
officer commits misconduct, for his personal ends and against the interest of 
G the bank and the depositors, lie must be dealt with iron hands and he does not 
deserve to be dealt with leniently. (520-C; G-H; 521-AJ 
T.N.C.S. Corpn. ltd and Ors. v. K. Meerabai, [2006) 2 SCC 255; 
Regional Manager, U.P. SRTC, Etm;ah and Ors. v. Hoti Lal an

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