THE STATE BANK OF INDORE versus GO VIND RAO

Citation: [1997] 1 S.C.R. 300 · Decided: 17-01-1997 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.S. VERMA, S.C. SEN, S.P. KURDUKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
THE STATE BANK OF INDORE 
v. 
GO VIND RAO 
JANUARY 17, 1997 
B 
[J.S. VERMA, SUHAS C. SEN AND S.P. KURDUKAR, JJ.] 
Constitution of India-Article 226-Delay/Laches--Dismissal from ser-
vice-Appeal •against the dismissal was dismissed-Nearly after four years 
special appeal was pref med which was also dismissed-Writ petition after ten 
C years challenging the order of dismissal-Held, writ petition after such a long 
lapse of time cannot be entertained-Service Law. 
Service Law-Bank-Grant of loan-Responsibility/Liability of the of-
ficer acting in supervisory, capacity-Loan granted in disregard of rnles, 
became i"ecoverable-Power of granting loan was conferred 011 other 
D employee-Held, it would not absolve the officer who had acted in supervisory 
capacity, from the charge of causing loss to the Bank, since higher the position 
of an officer, the greater is his responsibility. 
G was an agent of a Bank. Some loans were granted by the Bank in 
E total disregard of the specified rules; as such the loans became completely 
irrecoverable. G was served with a charge sheet for causing loss to the 
Bank. Enquiry officer submitted inquiry report to the Disciplinary 
Authority that G was guilty of negligence. G objected that the D.O was 
primarily responsible for granting of loans, he had acted only in super-
F 
visory capacity. Disciplinary Authority after considering the report and the 
objection, passed an order and dismissed G from the service. 
On 2-6-1978, G preferred an appeal against the order of dismissal, 
which was dismissed by the appellate authority. Nearly after four years, 
another appeal (described as special appeal) was filed by G, which was 
G also dismissed on 12-5-1982. Five years thereafter i.e. on 6-4-1987 G filed 
a Writ Petition challenging the validity of the order of dismissal passed 
on 3.10-1977 before the High Court. 
1
(
',.-
' 
High Court quashed the order of dismissal on the ground that if the 
,__.. _ 
charges put together, they merely point to lack of supervision or negligence 
H and held that G deemed to have retired on his due date of retirement and 
300 
STATE BANK OF INDORE v. GOVINDRAO [S.C.SEN,J.] 
301 
~ )' 
directed the Bank to pay all the dues to the writ petitioner. Hence, this A 
appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1. In any event, the writ petition challenging the order of 
dismissal passed on 3-10-1977cannot be entertained and set aside by the B 
r 
writ court after a lapse of nearly 10 years by re-evaluating the evidence and 
J 
reappraisal of the charge-sheet. [303-B] 
....., 
>( 
2. The lack of supervision or negligence of G resulted in grant of 
huge irrecoverable loans by the Bank. The higher the position of an officer c 
the greater is his responsibility. The power conferred on D.O. in the matter 
of granting loans cannot absolve G. The order passed by the High Court 
is set aside. [303-A-B; C] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3136 of 
1991. 
D 
~ 
From the Judgment and order dated 21.6.90 of the Madhya Pradesh 
High Court in M.P. No. 417 of 1987. 
AK. Chitaley and S.K. Gambhir for the Appellant. 
E 
Sushi! Kr. Jain, Ms. P. Jain and AP. Dhamija for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SEN, J. Govindrao was agent of Ujjain Branch of the State Bank of 
-.... 
Indore. On 18th March, 1977 a chargesheet was served upon him in which F 
it was alleged that loans were granted from his Branch of the Bank in total 
disregard of the rules regulating grant of such loans which had become 
irrecoverable and thereby had caused loss to the Bank. Govindrao was 
supplied with copies of all the documents demanded by him and was 
permitted to inspect records, vouchers, etc. but he did not file any reply to G 
the allegations made against him. The Enquiry Officer found Govindrao 
guilty of negligence in the matter of granting of the Joans and made his 
~ 
report after waiting for the reply from Govindrao for a considerable period 
of time. Thereupon the Disciplinary Authority issued a show cause notice 
to Govindrao calling upon him to show cause why he should not be 
dismissed. On 28.9.77 Govindrao informed the Disciplinary Authority that H 
302 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1997] 1 S.C.R. 
A the Development Officer, Shri Sharda, was primarily responsible for grant-
ing of the irrecoverable loans. Govindrao had acted only in supervisory 
capacity. 
On 3rd October, 1977 the Disciplinary Authority, after taking into 
consideration the ob.iection fi

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