STATE BANK OF INDIA versus RAM LAL BHASKAR & ANR

Citation: [2011] 12 S.C.R. 1036 · Decided: 13-10-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
c 
[2011] 12 S.C.R. 1036 
STATE BANK OF INDIA 
v. 
RAM LAL BHASKAR & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 2930 of 2009) 
OCTOBER 13, 2011 
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN, A.K. PATNAIK AND H.L. 
GOKHALE, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
State Bank of India Officers' Service Rules, 1992 - r. 
19(3) - Disciplinary proceedings - Charge-sheet issued 
against a Bank Manager alleging various acts of misconduct 
- Initiation of enquiry - Bank Manager dismissed from service 
0 after he had already retired from service - Challenged by the 
Bank Manager - Order of dismissal upheld by the appellate 
authority - Writ Petition - Order of dismissal quashed by the 
High Court - On appeal, held: It cannot be said that the order 
of dismissal was illegal and without jurisdiction - Under r. 
E 19(3) in case disciplinary proceedings were initiated against 
an officer before he ceased to be in the Bank's service, the 
disciplinary proceedings, at the discretion of the Managing 
Director, could be continued and concluded by the authority 
concerned as if the officer continued to be in service which is 
only for the purpose of the continuance and conclusion of 
F such proceedings. 
Constitution of India, 1950 - Article 226 - Proceedings 
under - Power of High Court - Held: High Court does not sit 
as an appellate authority over the findings of the disciplinary 
G authority - Where the findings of the disciplinary authority are 
supported by some evidence, the High Court does not re-
appreciate the evidence and come to a different and 
independent finding on the evidence - On facts, the High 
Court re-appreciated the evidence and arrived at the 
H 
1036 
STATE BANK OF INDIA v. RAM LAL BHASKAR & 1037 
ANR. 
conclusion that the Bank Manager was not guilty of any A 
misconduct - Thus, the order of the High Court quashing the 
dismissal of the Bank Manager, set aside. 
Respondent No.1-Branch Manager of the appellant-
Bank was served with a charge-sheet dated 22.12.1999 
alleging various acts of misconduct as the Branch 
Manager. An enquiry was conducted and the enquiry 
officer submitted a report dated 28.09.2000 holding that 
four out of the six charges were proved against the 
respondent No.1. On 31.01.2000, respondent No. 1 retired 
from service. Thereafter, the appointing authority on 
C 
consideration of the enquiry report, the records of the 
enquiry and the submissions made by respondent No.1, 
dismissed respondent No. 1 from service by order dated 
15.05.2001. The appellate authority also upheld the order 
of dismissal. Aggrieved, respondent No. 1 filed a writ D 
petition. The High Court quashed the order of dismissal 
B 
as the respondent No.1 had already retired from service, 
and directed the appellant to release his arrears of salary 
as well as the post retirement benefits. Therefore, the 
appellant filed the instant appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
E 
HELD: 1.1 In the instant case, the charge-sheet was 
issued on 22.12.1999 when the respondent No.1 was in 
service and there were clear provisions in Rule 19(3) of 
F 
the State Bank of India Officers' Service Rules, 1992, that 
in case disciplinary proceedings under the relevant rules · 
of service have been initiated against an officer before he 
ceased to be in the Bank's service by the operation of, 
or by virtue of, any of the rules or the provisions of the 
G 
rules, the disciplinary proceedings may, at the discretion 
of the Managing Director, be continued and concluded 
by the authority by which the proceedings were initiated 
in the manner provided for in the rules as if the officer 
H 
1038 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 12 S.C.R. 
A continues to be in service, so however, that he shall be 
deemed to be in service only for the purpose of the 
continuance and conclusion of such proceedings. There 
is no merit in the contention that the enquiry and the 
order of dismissal were illegal and without jurisdiction. 
· B [Para 6) [1042-E-H; 1043-A-B] 
1.2 The enquiry officer found that charges no. 1, 2, 4 
an.d 6 had been proved against the respondent No. 1. 
While arriving at these findings on the four charges 
proved against the respondent No. 1, the enquiry officer 
C considered a number of documents and also considered 
the documents produced on behalf of the respondent No. 
1. The findings of the enquiry officer were based on 
evidence and the appointing authority had agreed with 
the findings of the enquiry officer. [Para 7) [1043-C-D] 
D 
1.3 In a proceeding under Article 226 of the 
Constitution, the H

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