STATE BANK OF INDIA versus A.G.D. REDDY

Citation: [2023] 11 S.C.R. 652 · Decided: 24-08-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.K. MAHESHWARI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 11 S.C.R. 652 : 2023 INSC 766
CASE DETAILS
STATE BANK OF INDIA
v.
A.G.D. REDDY
(Civil Appeal No. 11196 of 2011)
AUGUST 24, 2023
[J. K. MAHESHWARI AND K. V. VISWANATHAN, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration: Whether the Division Bench and the Single 
Judge of the High Court were justifi ed in quashing the order passed by the 
Appointing Authority imposing a punishment of “reduction in basic pay to 
the lowest stage in Scale-I” as envisaged under Rule 49 (e) of the State Bank 
of India (Supervising Staff ) Service Rules and treating the period spent by 
the delinquent offi  cer under suspension from 18.08.1990 till the date of his 
reinstatement as suspension only.
Service Law – Misconduct – Commission of certain acts of 
misconduct by the employee while working as Field Offi  cer of the 
Bank – Disciplinary proceedings – Appointing Authority imposed 
punishment of reduction in basic pay to the lowest stage in Scale-I 
and treated the period spent by the delinquent officer under 
suspension till the date of his reinstatement as suspension only – 
Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court quashed the 
order – Correctness:
Held: Both the Single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court 
erred in interfering with the fi ndings of the Enquiry Offi  cer, the decision of 
the Disciplinary Authority, and the order of the Appointing Authority and 
the Appellate Authority – Thus, the order of the Single Judge and that of the 
Division Bench set aside – State Bank of India (Supervising Staff ) Service 
Rules – r. 49 (e).[Para 41]
Service Law – Disciplinary proceeding – Onus of proof:
652
653
 Held: In a disciplinary proceeding, the burden of proof depends upon 
the nature of the charge and the nature of the explanation put forward by 
the employee – In a given case, the burden may be shifted to the employee 
depending upon the explanation – On facts, the specifi c charge was with 
regard to a series of named units, periodical inspections were not carried 
out – It was after the production of the inspection register that the defence 
representative of the employee stated, that they would respond after going 
through the said documents – No response was forthcoming – Neither from 
the records nor at the hearing it was demonstrated as to how the charge of 
failure to conduct the inspection was countered by the employee – Records 
sought being made available, the onus did shift to the employee to show 
that the charge was untenable – As regards the failure to conduct periodical 
inspection, it cannot be said that the fi nding of the Enquiry Offi  cer is on a 
mis-reading of the evidence or that the records of the inspection of units 
were part of the records that could be possibly misplaced or that a fi nding 
was based on some stray sentence and personal knowledge was imported 
by the Enquiry Offi  cer de hors the record. [Paras 22-25]
Service Law – Disciplinary proceedings – Scope of judicial review:
Held: Scope of judicial review against a departmental enquiry 
proceeding is very limited – It is not in the nature of an appeal and a review 
on merits of the decision is not permissible – Scope of the enquiry is to 
examine whether the decision-making process is legitimate and to ensure 
that the fi ndings are not bereft of any evidence – If the records reveal that the 
fi ndings are based on some evidence, it is not the function of the court in a 
judicial review to re-appreciate the same and arrive at an independent fi nding 
on the evidence – On facts, it could not be said that the Enquiry Report, 
the fi ndings of the Disciplinary Authority and the order of the Appointing 
Authority are based on no evidence or are perverse – Even if the report 
insofar as the aspect of non-submission of control form, the transgression 
of the area of operation and non-declaration of the immovable property and 
certain other charges is avoided, the order of penalty can be sustained – 
Aspects of failure to conduct periodic inspection and the negligence in not 
stipulating the taking of immovable property as collateral security in spite 
of the party off ering it, constrains to conclude that there was material on 
record for the appellant to pass the order of penalty – Orders of the Single 
STATE BANK OF INDIA v. A.G.D. REDDY
654
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 11 S.C.R.
Judge and the Division Bench not sustainable for transgressing the limits of 
judicial review in setting aside the enquiry proceedings and the punishment 
imposed. [Paras 32, 33

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