THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD AND ANR. versus P. KATA RAO

Citation: [2008] 6 S.C.R. 983 · Decided: 24-04-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

-I 
.. 
) 
[2008] 6 S.C:R. 983 
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, STATE BANK OF 
A 
HYDERABAD AND ANR. 
v: 
P. KATA RAO 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 2961-2962 of 2008) 
APRIL 24, 2008 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND D.K. JAIN, JJ.] 
Service Law -
Departmental proceedings -
Simultaneous criminal proceedings on the same set of c 
charges - Order of dismissal by Disciplinary Authority -
Acquittal of all the charges in criminal proceedings - High 
Court directing appropriate authority to re-consider the 
punishment imposed on the delinquent officer- Held: Superior 
courts ordinarily should not interfere with quantum of 
punishment and finding of enquiry officer-Acquittal in criminal D 
proceeding also do not debar departmental proceedings -
However, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, 
order of dismissal not correct-Appropriate Authority to impose 
any other suitable penalty on the delinquent Officer. 
E 
Departmental proceedings were initiated against the 
respondent-employee. 12 charges were alleged. He was 
also proceeded against in a criminal case on the same 
set of charges. In the Departmental proceedings, Enquiry 
Officer found the respondent guilty of all the charges apart F 
from three charges. Appointing Authority passed an order 
of dismissal. Appeal against the order of dismissal was 
rejected. In a writ petition against the same, High Court 
quashed the order of punishment and directed the 
disciplinary authority to issue a show cause notice 
indicating modified punishment. In compliance of the G 
order, notice was issued, but again order of dis.missal was 
passed. On dismissal of appeal against the same, writ 
petition was filed. In the meantime, criminal proceedings 
were concluded as High court acquitted the respondent 
983 
H 
984 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 6 S.C.R. 
A of all the charges. 
Respondent filed writ petition challenging the 
second order of dismissal. Single Judge of High Court 
held the second order of dismissal contrary to the 
direction of High Court passed in previous writ petition 
8 and directed fresh consideration of the matter. In the writ 
appeal thereagainst, Division Bench of High Court also 
directed the appellants to re-consider respondent's case. 
Hence the present appeal. 
c 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that 
the jurisdiction of superior courts in interfering with a 
finding of fact arrived at by the Enquiry Officer is limited. 
The High Court, it is trite, would also ordinarily not interfere 
D with the quantum of punishment. There cannot, 
furthermore, be any doubt or dispute that only because 
the delinquent employee who was also facing a criminal 
charge stands acquitted, the same, by itself, would not 
debar the disciplinary authority in initiating a fresh 
E departmental proceeding and/ or where the departmental 
proceedings had already been initiated or to continue 
therewith. The approach that the court's jurisdiction is 
unlimited although had not found favour with some 
Benches, the applicability of the doctrine of 
F proportionality, however, had not been deviated from. The 
legal principle enunciated to the effect that on the same 
set of facts the delinquent shall not be proceeded in a 
departmental proceedings and in a criminal case 
simultaneously, has, however, been deviated from. The 
G dicta of this Court, however, remains unshaken although 
the applicability thereof had been found to be dependant 
on the fact situation obtaining in each case. [Paras 18, 19 
and 20] [992-C-G] 
Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and 
H Anr. 1999 (3) SCC 679 - referred to. 
THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, STATE BANK OF 
985 
HYDERABAD AND ANR. 
2.1 In view the peculiar facts and circumstances of A 
the case, there is no reason to disagree with the findings 
of High Court. Respondent was a responsible officer. He 
· was holding a position of trust and confidence. He was 
proceeded with both on the charges of criminal 
misconduct as also civil misconduct on the same set of B 
... 
facts, subject, of course, to the exception that charges 
Nos. 11 and 15 stricto sensu were not the subject matter of 
criminal proceedings, as integrity and diligence, however, 
were not in question. Before this court also it has not been 
contended that he had made any personal gain. ·The High c 
Court in its judgment categorically opined that he merely 
had committed some inadvertent mistakes. He did not 
have any intention to commit any misconduct. The 
p

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