STATE BANK OF INDIA & ANR. versus K.S. VISHWANATH

Citation: [2022] 4 S.C.R. 143 · Decided: 20-05-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
143
STATE BANK OF INDIA & ANR.
v.
K.S. VISHWANATH
(Civil Appeal No. 3490 of 2022)
MAY 20, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Service Law : Dismissal from service – Delinquent employee-
Bank Manager dismissed from service by the disciplinary authority
for misappropriating the sum of Rs. 10 lakhs by preparing fraudulent
cash remittance document – Dismissal confirmed by the appellate
authority – In writ petition, the Single Judge of the High Court set
aside the dismissal order and directed the employer to give all the
consequential benefits to the employee except back wages as he
attained the age of superannuation – Upheld by the Division Bench
– On appeal, held: Management of employer has proved the
complete chain of events to conclude that employee was guilty of
the charge – Findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, reasonably
support the conclusion that the Delinquent officer is guilty of the
charge – Modus operandi adopted by the employee shows criminal
mind and conduct – High Court  erred in reappreciating the entire
evidence on record and interfering with the findings of fact recorded
by the Enquiry officer and accepted by Disciplinary Authority, thus,
the order of the High Court is patently illegal – Furthermore, it
cannot be said that since the delinquent officer has been acquitted
in a criminal court, he cannot be held guilty in a disciplinary
proceeding – Standard of proof is different in criminal cases and
departmental proceedings and the same charges and evidences may
lead to different results in the two proceedings – Thus, order of
dismissal justified – Order passed by the High Court is quashed
and set aside.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 In the departmental enquiry against the
delinquent officer by the disciplinary authority it was alleged that
he got prepared a set of fraudulent cash remittance document
and by producing the same at Peenya Industrial Estate Branch,
[2022] 4 S.C.R. 143
143
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
144
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 4 S.C.R.
Bangalore made the officials believe them to be genuine and part
with Rs.10 Lacs as cash remittance to SSI Peenya II Stage Branch
and after receiving the same cash he failed to account for the
same in the books of SSI Peenya II Stage Branch. To prove the
said charge the management as such examined 9 witnesses and
produced 41 documents. The said charge has been held to be
proved by the Enquiry Officer on appreciation of the entire
evidence on record including the deposition of the management
witnesses examined as PW1 to PW7. On considering the enquiry
report and the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer it appears
that the management has been able to establish and prove the
complicity of the delinquent officer and has been successful in
proving that the delinquent officer prepared the fraudulent letter
(by examining PW7) who at the letter requesting for remittance
resembles the style/writing of the delinquent officer (PW1); it
was the respondent–delinquent officer who had come with one
more person whom he introduced as a new cashier and the
delinquent officer submitted the voucher and that the remittance/
cash was given to him inside the vault (by examining PW2 and
PW3); the Branch Manager confirmed that the letter allegedly
bearing his signature seeking remittance of Rs.10 lakhs was not
signed by him (PW4); and that it was the respondent–delinquent
officer who went to the Branch with another person for cash
remittance and that the cash remittance was paid to the
respondent-delinquent officer. [Para 7][152-E-H; 153-A-C]
1.2 It can be seen that the management has been able to
prove the complete chain of events which led to the conclusion
that it was the delinquent officer who prepared the false letter;
he went to the Branch for withdrawing the cash along with the
fraudulent letter; that it was he who took the cash/remittance of
Rs.10 lakhs and thereafter the said amount was not deposited
with the SSI Peenya II Stage Branch. [Para 7.1][153-E]
1.3 From the impugned judgment and order passed by the
High Court it appears that the High Court dealt with and
considered the writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution challenging the decision of the Bank/Management
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
145
dismissing the delinquent officer as if the High Court was
exercising the powers of the appellate authority. The High Court
committed a grave error in interfering with the order passed by
the disciplinary authority dismissing the respondent-del

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