Supreme Court of India
The General Manager Personnel … vs B S N Prasad on 21 January, 2025
Author: Abhay S. Oka
Bench: Abhay S. Oka
2025 INSC 89
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6327 OF 2024
THE GENERAL MANAGER PERSONNEL
SYNDICATE BANK & ORS …APPELLANTS
VERSUS
B S N PRASAD …RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
FACTUAL ASPECT
1. The respondent was employed with the appellants
(Syndicate Bank) as a clerk. In due course, he was promoted
as a branch manager. He worked as the branch manager of the
Mudigubba branch between 11th June 2007 and 03rd
November 2008. An investigation was conducted against the
appellant. On 02nd December, 2010, the Investigating Officer
submitted a report against the appellant. After issuing notices,
the Syndicate Bank issued a chargesheet to the respondent on
17th October, 2011. The allegation, in short, in the chargesheet
was that while working as the branch manager in the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
ANITA MALHOTRA
Mudigubba branch during the period between 11th June, 2007
Date: 2025.01.21
18:19:10 IST
Reason:
Civil Appeal No. 6327 of 2024 Page 1 of 18
and 03rd November, 2008, the respondent abused his position
by making fictitious debits to crop insurance account narrating
the credit to various Syndicate Kisan Credit Cards (SKCC)
accounts. He fraudulently withdrew the amounts by debiting
the SKCC head without the borrowers’ knowledge. The
allegation against him was that he made fictitious
debits/releases under SKCC accounts and, in certain cases,
exceeded the sanctioned limit. He dishonestly obtained
additional withdrawals from certain customers by deceiving
them. Another allegation is that he sanctioned a vehicle loan to
a borrower, which was a Non-Performing Asset (in short, ‘NPA’),
in violation of the guidelines. In collusion with two other
persons (Shri A Nagireddy and Shri M Ramakrishna), he
fraudulently siphoned off ₹ 70,000/-. He misappropriated a
sum of ₹ 9,000/- received by the branch under the debt waiver
scheme to the SKCC account of one Shri D. Nagaraju. It was
alleged that the respondent had committed many illegalities
and irregularities, which tarnished the fair image of the
Syndicate Bank. The statement of imputations was also served
upon the respondent.
2. A disciplinary inquiry was conducted against the
respondent. The inquiry officer submitted a report on 15th
March, 2012. He held that the charges against the respondent
were proved. After receiving a copy of the inquiry report, the
respondent submitted a written response on 18th April, 2012.
By order dated 03rd May, 2012, the Disciplinary Authority
dismissed the respondent from the service of Syndicate Bank
Civil Appeal No. 6327 of 2024 Page 2 of 18
with immediate effect for committing the breach of Regulation
3(1) read with Regulation 24 of Syndicate Bank Officer
Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations 1976 (for short ‘the
Regulations’). The respondent preferred an appeal. The
Appellate Authority, by an order dated 30th March 2013,
confirmed the order of the Disciplinary Authority.
3. As the respondent was exonerated in criminal
proceedings, he made representations on 28th August, 2013
and 24th November, 2014 requesting the Bank to set aside the
penalty of dismissal. Thereafter, the respondent filed a writ
petition to challenge the order of dismissal. Learned Single
Judge on 15th June, 2022 set aside the orders of the
Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority on the ground
that principles of natural justice were not followed in the
inquiry and ordered the reinstatement of the respondent and
since he had superannuated, the Court held that he would be
entitled to all consequential benefits from the date of dismissal
from service till the date of his superannuation. The appellant
challenged the decision of the learned Single Judge by
preferring a Writ Appeal before the Division Bench. By the
impugned judgment, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal
by holding that it was a case of no evidence against the
respondent.
SUBMISSIONS
4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants
invited our attention to the allegations against the respondent
Civil Appeal No. 6327 of 2024 Page 3 of 18
in the chargesheet served upon him. Learned senior counsel
submitted that during vigilance investigation and disciplinary
inquiry, the respondent admitted the transactions in respect of
which allegations were made in the charge sheet. He submitted
that the officer who conducted the preliminary inquiry was
examined as a witness in the disciplinary inquiry. He
submitted that there was no need for the Bank to examine any
other witness as the entire case was based on admitted
documentary evidence and statements of the customers of the
Bank which the respondent did not dispute.
5. The learned senior counsel invited our attention to
written communication made by the respondent in which he
accepted the allegations against him. He submitted that there
was adequate evidence on record of the inquiry, mainly in the
form of documentary evidence. Relying upon a decision of this
court in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and
Others1, he urged that a writ court cannot go into the question
of the adequacy of evidence adduced in the disciplinary
proceedings. The question to be examined by the writ court is
whether there was some evidence available against the
delinquent employee in the disciplinary proceedings.
6. Learned senior counsel submitted that branch managers
of banks are expected to have higher standards of honesty and
conduct. He relied upon a decision of this court in State Bank
1 (1995) 6 SCC 749
Civil Appeal No. 6327 of 2024 Page 4 of 18
of India and Others v. Ramesh Dinkar Punde 2. He
submitted that the acquittal of the respondent in the criminal
case was of no relevance to the disciplinary inquiry. He relied
upon a decision of this court in the case of Manager, Reserve
Bank of India, Bangalore v. S. Mani and Others3.
7. He pointed out that 89 documents were produced in the
disciplinary inquiry. Moreover, the respondent was granted
inspection of the documents pertaining to the vigilance inquiry.
The respondent cross-examined the officer who conducted a
vigilance investigation. He submitted that out of the 6
transactions in respect of which a chargesheet was issued, in
the case of 5 transactions, the amounts were returned to
customers after the vigilance investigation. Only to one
customer, amount was paid before the vigilance investigation.
8. Learned counsel submitted that the respondent’s
admission in the written communications and the fact that he
returned the money to the customers shows that the allegation
of misappropriation was duly proved. He would, therefore,
submit that in the absence of any perversity in the findings
recorded in the disciplinary inquiry and in the order of the
Disciplinary Authority, the High Court, in the exercise of its
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
ought not to have interfered.
2 (2006) 7 SCC 212
3 (2005) 5 SCC 100
Civil Appeal No. 6327 of 2024 Page 5 of 18
9. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent
pointed out that the allegation against the respondent was that
he fraudulently withdrew and misappropriated a total amount
of ₹1,10,000/- from four different accounts. Moreover, he paid
excess amounts to two customers. He submitted that all the
amounts have been recovered, and the monetary loss caused
to the bank has been made good by the respondent. Learned
counsel invited our attention to a letter dated 03rd March, 2010,
addressed by the Deputy General Manager of the Syndicate
Bank to the respondent. He submitted that after considering
the allegations in the notice dated 30th April, 2009 and reply to
the notice submitted by the respondent, the Deputy General
Manager closed the issue by advising the respondent to
discharge his duties with utmost devotion and diligence to
protect the Bank’s interest. The respondent was cautioned
against the recurrence of such lapses. The learned counsel
would urge that disciplinary proceedings could not have been
initiated against the respondent after issuing this letter.
10. He would urge that it was a case of no evidence. Still, the
inquiry officer purported to hold that the charge against the
respondent was proved. He submitted that the respondent had
a very clean record from 1985 to 2007, and therefore, it was
not a case of a loss of confidence on the part of the employer.
He submitted that it was a case of no evidence. He relied upon
a decision of this court in the case of Indian Airlines Limited
Civil Appeal No. 6327 of 2024 Page 6 of 18
v. Prabha D. Kanan4. He also relied upon another decision of
this court in the case of Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National
Bank and Others5.
11. Lastly, he submitted that the powers of the Disciplinary
Authority must be exercised subject to principles of propriety
and fair play. He placed reliance on another decision of this
court in the case of Pravin Kumar v. Union of India and
Others6. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that this court
should not interfere with the concurrent decisions of the
learned Single Judge and Division Bench of the High Court.
OUR VIEW
12. We must note the respondent’s version of the allegations
against him, which is reflected in clauses (iii) and (iv) of
paragraph 2 of the written submissions filed by the respondent:
“(iii) That the Petitioners allege that the
Respondent had fraudulently withdrawn and
misappropriated an amount of Rs. 1,10,000/- from
the following accounts:
a. Sri G. Gopal (A/c. No. 454/06) – Rs. 25,000/-
(Recovered on 22.02.2011)b. Smt. B. Sakamma (A/c No. 860/07 – Rs.
20,000/- (recovered on 19.02.2011)c. Sri D. Sreedhar (A/c. No. 952/06) – Rs.
35,000/- (Recovered on 19.02.2011)4 (2006) 11 SCC 67
5 (2009) 2 SCC 570
6 (2020) 9 SCC 471Civil Appeal No. 6327 of 2024 Page 7 of 18
d. D. Sri M. Ramakrishna (A/c No. 1690/07) –
Rs. 30,000/- (Recovered on 18.02.2011)
(iv) Further, the excess amounts paid to Mr.
Nagireddy (Rs. 40,000) and Mr. Narayanappa (Rs.
16,000) were duly recovered on 12.05.2009 which
shows that the alleged loss to the Petitioner Bank
has already been made good. Further, in the Cross
Examination of Mr. R.V. Ramana Sastry dated
02.02.2012, his response to questions 13 and 14
makes it clear that the excess amounts that had
been credited to the accounts mentioned
hereinabove had been duly recovered which meant
that the alleged loss to the Bank had been made
good by the Respondent upon the realisation of the
error that had been caused in the transactions.”
13. Thus, even according to the respondent’s case, an excess
amount was paid to at least six customers. In the case of four
customers, the excess amount was made good only after the
Investigating Officer submitted the report dated 02nd
December, 2010, holding that the respondent’s integrity and
honesty were under a cloud. Vide letter dated 02nd April, 2011,
the Deputy General Manager of the Syndicate Bank called upon
the respondent to explain the lapses more particularly set out
in the said letter. The respondent replied by his letter dated
20th May, 2011, stating that after joining the branch, he had
the responsibility of renewing more than 4,700 SKCC accounts
within 60 days apart from mobilising deposits/recovery from
NPAs. He pointed out that he committed mistakes due to the
pressure of work. But, the amounts paid in excess have been
recovered. Syndicate Bank appointed an inquiry officer to
conduct an investigation. He submitted a report dated 02nd
Civil Appeal No. 6327 of 2024 Page 8 of 18
December, 2010, holding that acts committed by the
respondent were very serious involving the perpetration of
fraud against the Bank. He concluded that the respondent had
misappropriated the money of the customers/Bank, and,
therefore, the honesty and integrity of the respondent were
under a cloud. The Investigating Officer observed that it may
not be desirable to continue to assign sensitive areas to the
respondent as his acts have been unbecoming of an employee.
14. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 2nd April 2011 was
issued to the respondent by the appellant, calling upon him to
explain the allegations against him set out in the said notice.
He was called upon to submit the explanation/remarks within
7 days. The appellant replied by a letter dated 20th May, 2011.
He offered an explanation for the allegations against him. A
Charge sheet dated 17th October, 2011 was served upon the
respondent. The Disciplinary Authority (Assistant General
Manager) submitted a report dated 15th March, 2012 holding
that the charge against the respondent was proved. The
respondent replied on 18th April, 2012. Ultimately, by order
dated 03rd May, 2012, the Disciplinary Authority dismissed the
respondent from service.
15. We have carefully perused the findings recorded by the
learned Single Judge and Division Bench in the impugned
judgments. The High Court considered the following factors:
i. Criminal case in the subject matter resulted in acquittal;
Civil Appeal No. 6327 of 2024 Page 9 of 18
ii. Inquiry was not fair;
iii. There was no documentary evidence to arrive at a correct
decision; andiv. The cashier and customers were not examined as
witnesses in the departmental inquiry. Therefore, it was
a case of no evidence.
16. It is well settled that an acquittal in a criminal case is no
ground to exonerate a delinquent in disciplinary proceedings
as the standard of proof differs in these proceedings. It is well
settled that the adequacy of the evidence adduced during
disciplinary inquiry cannot be gone into in writ jurisdiction. In
the case of B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and Others1,
in paragraphs 12 and 13, this court held thus:
“12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision
but a review of the manner in which the decision is
made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that
the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure
that the conclusion which the authority reaches is
necessarily correct in the eye of the court. When an
inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a
public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to
determine whether the inquiry was held by a
competent officer or whether rules of natural justice
are complied with. Whether the findings or
conclusions are based on some evidence, the
authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry
has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a
finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding mustCivil Appeal No. 6327 of 2024 Page 10 of 18
be based on some evidence. Neither the technical
rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or
evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary
proceeding. When the authority accepts that
evidence and conclusion receives support
therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to
hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the
charge. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial
review does not act as appellate authority to
reappreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own
independent findings on the evidence. The
Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority
held the proceedings against the delinquent officer
in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural
justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing
the mode of inquiry or where the conclusion or
finding reached by the disciplinary authority is
based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding
be such as no reasonable person would have ever
reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the
conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so
as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case.
13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts.
Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has
coextensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the
nature of punishment. In a disciplinary inquiry, the
strict proof of legal evidence and findings on that
evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or
reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be
canvassed before the Court/Tribunal. In Union of
India v. H.C. Goel [(1964) 4 SCR 718: AIR 1964 SC 364
: (1964) 1 LLJ 38], this Court held at p. 728 that if the
conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence
Civil Appeal No. 6327 of 2024 Page 11 of 18
reached by the disciplinary authority, is perverse or
suffers from patent error on the face of the record or
based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could
be issued.”
(emphasis added)
17. It is well settled that the Bank officers are expected to
maintain a higher standard of honesty, integrity, and conduct.
In paragraph 17 of the decision of this court in the case Damoh
Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank & Another v. Munn Lal
Jain7 , it was held thus:
“17. A bank officer is required to exercise higher
standards of honesty and integrity. He deals
with money of the depositors and the
customers. Every officer/employee of the bank
is required to take all possible steps to protect
the interests of the bank and to discharge his
duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion
and diligence and to do nothing which is
unbecoming of a bank officer. Good conduct and
discipline are inseparable from the functioning
of every officer/employee of the bank. As was
observed by this Court in Disciplinary
Authority-cum-Regional Manager v. Nikunja
Bihari Patnaik [(1996) 9 SCC 69: 1996 SCC
(L&S) 1194], there is no defence available to say
that there was no loss or profit resulting in case,
when the officer/employee acted without
authority. The very discipline of an
organisation more particularly a bank is
dependent upon each of its officers and officers
acting and operating within their allotted
sphere. Acting beyond one’s authority is by
itself a breach of discipline and is a misconduct.
7 (2005) 10 SCC 84
Civil Appeal No. 6327 of 2024 Page 12 of 18
The charges against the employee were not casual
in nature and were serious. These aspects do not
appear to have been kept in view by the High
Court.”(emphasis added)
18. We have already referred to the allegations against the
respondent. Inspection Reports Review Cell of the Bank
addressed a letter dated 30th April, 2009, inviting the
respondent’s attention to some of the lapses and irregularities
observed during his tenure as a Bank manager. The
respondent replied to the said letter. After considering the
reply, the Deputy General Manager, by a letter dated 3rd
March, 2010, advised the respondent to discharge his duties
with utmost devotion and diligence. It is pertinent to note that
the letter dated 30th April, 2009 was addressed by the
Inspection Reports Review Cell after finding lapses and
irregularities in the functioning of the respondent. Merely
because advice was rendered to the respondent, it does not
take away the right of the appellant employer to initiate
disciplinary proceedings. The advice was not rendered by the
Disciplinary Authority. Moreover, all the imputations forming
part of the charge sheet were not part of the letter dated 30th
April, 2009.
19. Before initiating an inquiry by serving the charge sheet,
an Investigating Officer was appointed who submitted a
detailed report dated 02nd December, 2010. A notice was issued
to the respondent on 02nd April, 2011. The allegations made in
Civil Appeal No. 6327 of 2024 Page 13 of 18
the charge sheet are found in the notice dated 02nd April 2011.
In the reply dated 20th May, 2011, the respondent accepted
that:
a) There was an excess release of crop insurance amount in
the SKCC account of one Shri A Narayanappa. Later on,
the said amount was recovered;
b) As regards Shri Nagireddy, due to a mistake, an excess
crop insurance amount was sanctioned, which was
recovered from that party;
c) There was a wrong credit of Rs. 9,000/- to the account of
one Nagaraju, and the same was later on recovered;
d) As regards the allegation of excess claim amount paid to
Shri Gopal and Smt. Sakamma, the credits were done
due to the pressure of work.
20. Paragraph 4 of the letter dated 20th May, 2011 reads
thus:
“4. In respect of excess claim amount paid to
Sri. Gopal and Smt. Sakamma, these credits were
done in pressure of work due to wrong claims of
crop insurance for Kharif 2006. The excess amount
paid was recovered in full. Parties have given a
letter to this effect stating that the same was
withdrawn by them and repaid the amount. I
request you to kindly condone the mistake as a
special case as these mistakes have happened due
to some pressure of work.”(underline supplied)
Civil Appeal No. 6327 of 2024 Page 14 of 18
As far as allegation in respect of credit of ₹ 35,000/- to SKCC
account of Shri Sreedhar is concerned, in paragraph 5 of the
said reply, the respondent stated thus:
“5. In respect of credit of Rs. 35000/- to SKCC
952/2006 of Sri. Sreedhar slip were prepared by
me and sent to the concerned department for
entering. Even OG 167 slip was also sent with one
slip as enclosure. Missing of voucher was not
brought to my notice while writing day book
manually by the concerned clerk and supervisor at
that time. The excess paid amount was repaid by
the party along with a letter in this regard. Hence,
I request you to kindly condone the mistake as a
special case.”(underline supplied)
21. The respondent stated that there was a threat to his life,
and he worked under pressure. The respondent requested to
condone the mistakes on his part as a special case. Thus, he
accepted almost all allegations in the Articles of Charge. The
respondent pointed out his achievements while working in the
Mudigubba branch.
22. Thus, there was no factual dispute about the correctness
of illegalities and irregularities alleged in the charge sheet. The
Investigating Officer was examined as a witness, and 95
documents were produced during the disciplinary inquiry. The
respondent made a very detailed cross-examination of the
witness. The allegations in the chargesheet were based on
documentary evidence which was before the inquiry officer. In
view of the respondent’s admissions and the fact that
Civil Appeal No. 6327 of 2024 Page 15 of 18
documentary evidence was on record, it cannot be said that it
was a case of no evidence. The principles of natural justice were
followed during the disciplinary inquiry. The respondent
thoroughly cross-examined the officer examined as a witness.
The respondent did not apply for leading any evidence.
Therefore, the finding that the disciplinary inquiry was not fair
or was in breach of the principles of natural justice cannot be
accepted as correct. The entire premise on which the High
Court had interfered is without basis.
23. It is well settled that the exercise of powers by the
disciplinary authority is always subject to principles of
proportionality and fair play. In the facts of the case, the
financial loss caused to the appellant was reimbursed. The
respondent, at every stage, fairly accepted his mistakes. The
respondent, while replying to the notice and the letters
addressed to him by the appellant, repeatedly pointed out that
he had to deal with more than 4,800 SKCC accounts during a
short period of 60 days. Therefore, he worked under pressure
all along. Moreover, he stated that he was in short receipt of
crop insurance claims pertaining to 2,500 farmers to the extent
of ₹ 50 lakhs. Therefore, the farmers and political leaders
pressurized him.
24. The respondent was employed in the appellant bank on
5th August, 1985 and had an unblemished record for more
than 21 years till 11th June 2007. We have perused the
Syndicate Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal)
Regulations, 1976 (for short “the Disciplinary Regulations”).
Civil Appeal No. 6327 of 2024 Page 16 of 18
Under Regulation 4, there is a provision for imposing minor
penalties and major penalties. The respondent has already
reached the age of superannuation. In our view, the penalty of
dismissal was disproportionate to the misconduct established
against the respondent and his unblemished career for a long
time. However, fact remains that the misconduct alleged and
proved against the respondent was of a serious nature
considering the fact that a very high standard of conduct is
expected from a branch manager of a Bank. Considering the
facts of the case, we are of the view that a minor penalty, as
provided in Regulation 4(e) of the Disciplinary Regulations,
would be appropriate. The penalty will be of reducing the
respondent to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for a period
of one year, without cumulative effect and not adversely
affecting his pension.
25. The present appeal succeeds in part, and we pass the
following orders:
a) The impugned judgments and orders are quashed and set
aside, and the finding recorded in the disciplinary inquiry that
the misconduct on the part of the respondent was established
is restored;
b) However, the order of penalty is modified, and it is
directed that the respondent shall be subjected to a minor
penalty under Regulation 4(e) of the Disciplinary Regulations
by reducing him to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for a
period of one year, without cumulative effect and not
adversely affecting his pension; andCivil Appeal No. 6327 of 2024 Page 17 of 18
c) Necessary retiral dues, if any, be restored/paid to the
respondent within four months from today.
The appeal is partly allowed on the above terms.
……….……………………..J.
(Abhay S. Oka)
………..……………………..J.
(Augustine George Masih)
New Delhi;
January 21, 2025
Civil Appeal No. 6327 of 2024 Page 18 of 18