LexSTATE BANK OF INDIA & OTHERS versus RAMADHAR SAO
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 8 S.C.R. 1084 : 2025 INSC 1010 State Bank of India & Others v. Ramadhar Sao (Civil Appeal No. 10680 of 2025) 20 August 2025 [Rajesh Bindal* and Manmohan, JJ.] Issue for Consideration The respondent was removed from services. The order of punishment was set aside by the Single Bench of the High Court and the respondent was directed to be reinstated with back wages. By the impugned judgment intra-court appeal filed by the Bank was dismissed against the order passed by the Single Bench of the High Court. Headnotes† Service Law – Removal from Service – Respondent joined the Bank as a messenger – Complaints were received against the respondent for taking bribe for coordination in sanction of loans – Inquiry Officer submitted his report by holding the respondent guilty of acting as a middleman for sanction and disbursement of loans at the branch by taking illegal gratification and his unauthorized absence from duty was also proved – Accepting the report, punishment of ‘dismissal from service’ was imposed upon the respondent – However, the Appellate Authority vide order dated 07.12.2012, reduced the penalty from ‘dismissal’ to ‘removal from service’ with superannuation benefits – Writ Petition filed by the respondent before the Single Bench of the High Court was allowed and he was reinstated with back wages – Intra-Court appeal preferred by the Bank was dismissed – Correctness: Held: There was no violation of Principles of Natural Justice – Due process was followed during the course of inquiry – The Inquiry Officer appreciated the evidence led by five loanees who categorically deposed that they had paid money to the respondents for coordinating sanction of their loans despite their documents being deficit – The opinion expressed by the Single Bench that the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority were based on conjuncture and surmises, cannot be * Author [2025] 8 S.C.R. 1085 State Bank of India & Others v. Ramadhar Sao legally sustained – It is for the reason that if entire evidence is perused, there was no error in the findings record – These were based on preponderance of probabilities and strict proof of evidence beyond reasonable doubt was not required – The proved charge against the respondent was that he was working as a conduit in getting the loans sanctioned – Further, the fact which has been recorded by the Disciplinary Authority, when respondent appeared in response to a show cause notice before imposition of penalty, points towards the direction where he apparently admitted his guilt – Thus, the impugned orders passed by the Single Bench and the Division Bench of the High Court cannot be legally sustained – The same are liable to be set aside – The order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 07.12.2012 imposing punishment of ‘removal from service’ with superannuation benefits stands restored. [Paras 14, 14.1, 14.2, 14.3, 15] Case Law Cited SBI v. Ajai Kumar Srivastava, 2021 INSC 7 : [2021] 1 SCR 51 : (2021) 2 SCC 612; Boloram Bordoloi v. Lakhimi Gaolia Bank and Others, 2021 INSC 66 : [2021] 1 SCR 858 : (2021) 3 SCC 806 – referred to. List of Keywords Service Law; Removal from service; Sanction of loans; Unauthorised absence from duty; Illegal gratification; Principles of natural justice; Preponderance of probabilities; Conjuncture and surmises; Dismissal; Superannuation benefits. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 10680 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 14.12.2022 of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in LPA No. 1283 of 2018 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellants: Sanjay Kapur, Surya Prakash, Ms. Shubhra Kapur, Ms. Mahima Kapur, Ms. Akanksha Bhatia, Ms. Annu Mishra. Advs. for the Respondent: Devashish Bharukha,Sr.Adv., Ms. Sarvshree, Ms. Rita Jha. 1086 [2025] 8 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment Rajesh Bindal, J. 1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellants1 aggrieved by the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court2 in appeal3 filed by them. By the impugned judgment intra-court appeal filed by the Bank was dismissed against the order4 passed by the Single Bench of the High Court. 2. The respondent had approached the High Court by filing writ petition5 challenging order dated 07.12.2012 passed in statutory appeal filed by him before the Appellate Authority, by which his punishment was reduced from ‘dism
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.