LexSTATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. versus SAMARENDRA KISHORE ENDOW AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS.
v.
SAMARENDRA KISHORE ENDOW AND ANR.
JANUARY 18, 1994
[B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.)
Service Law: State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules :
Rules 32( 1 ), 32( 4 ), 51 (2 )-Bank Employee-Disciplinary Enquiry-Submis-
sion off alse claims in transfer allowances bill and commission of other ir-
C regularities-Removal from service-Writ petition by employee allowed by
High Court holding that findings of departmenta( authorities were based on
no evidence-Held, findings of Enquiry Officer were based on documentary
evidence--lf punishment of removal is harsh, it is a matter to be considered
by disciplinary authority or appellate authority and not by High Court or
D Administrative Tribunal-Case remitted to appellate authority.
Constitution of India : Article 226-Bank employee-Disciplinary in-
quiry-Punishment-Imposition of~uantum of punishment-Held, imposi-
tion of appropriate punishment is within the discretion of disciplinary
au~ority-Appellate authority may inteifere, but not High Court-f'ower
E .under Article 226 is one of judicial review-It is not an appeal from a
decision, but a review of the manner in which the decision is made.
Article 311(2)-Bank Officer-Disciplinary Enquiry-Penalty-Enquiry.
report not furnished to employee-Whether vitiaties proceedings.
F
Administrative Law : Judicial review-Power of judicial review is meant
to ensure that individual receives fair treatment and nor that tht~· authority
reaches a conclusion which is comet in the eyes of the Court.
The respondent, a Branch Manager in the appellant Bank, on his
transfer, claimed a certain amount by way of reimbursement for expenses
G incurred by him in shifting his house·hold goods. He was subjected to a
y-
---(
disciplinary inquiry on the ground of false claims made by him in the
~-
transfer allowance bill and in respect of certain other irregularities com-
mitted by him while working as Branch Manager. The Enquiry Officer held
that all the charges had been proved. The disciplinary authority agreed
H with the findings except on one charge, and imposed the pc:nalty of removal
154
-
S.B.I. v. S.K. ENDOW
155
__.;..,.
upon the respondent. The respondent's appeal was dismissed by the A
Board. He filed a writ petition, which was allowed by the High Court on
the grounds that the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the disciplinary
authority were based on no evidence and were perverse; non-supply of
Enquiry Officer's report before imposing the penalty vitiated the order of
punishment; and the appellate order was not a speaking order as con-
B
,-
templated byr.51(2) of the S.B.I. (Supervising Staff) Service Rules. Hence
the appeal by special leave.
-•{
Allowing the appeal, setting aside the order of the High Court and
remitting the matter to the appellate authority on the question of punish·
ment, this Court
c
HELD : 1. The power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the
individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the authority,
after according fair treatment, reaches on a matter which it is authorised
by I.aw to decide for itself, a conclusion which is correct in the eyes of the
.. >
Court. [162-E]
D
Chief Constable of North Wales Police v. Evans, (1982) 3 All.E.R. 141
at 155, referred to.
2. Imposition of appropriate punishment is within the discretion and
judgment of the disciplinary authorify. It may be open to the appellate E
authority to interfere with it, but not to the High Court-or the Ad-
ministrative Tribunal-for the reason that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal
is similar to the powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution. The power under Article 226 is one of judicial review. It is
not an appeal from a decision, but a review of the manner in which the F
decision was made. (162-D]
A.B. Ganghi v. M/s. Gopinath & Sons, [1992] Suppl. 2 S.C.R. 312 and
State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. v. S. Sree Rama Rao, A.I.R. (1963) S.C.
1723, relied on.
Chief Constable of the North Wales Police v. Evans, (1982) 3 All.E.R. G
._.z
141 at lSS,.referred to.
3. The findings of the Enquiry Officer on charges in respect of false
claims in tht transfer allowance bill were based on documentary evidence,
and the High Court was not right in holding otherwise. (161-B]
H
A
B
156
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1994) 1 S.C.R.
4. The finding of the Enquiry Officer with regard to the violation of
rules regarding disbuExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.