Disciplinary Authority Not Required To Record Reason In Detail If Inquiry Officer’s Report Is Accepted: Supreme Court

The appeal before the Apex Court was filed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court dismissing an intra-court appeal filed by the Bank. The respondent had approached the High Court by filing a writ petition challenging an order by which his punishment was reduced from ‘dismissal’ to ‘removal from service’ with superannuation benefits.

The Division Bench of Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan stated, “Law on the issue, that disciplinary authority is not required to record reason in detail if report of inquiry officer, is accepted. Reference can be made to judgment of this Court in Boloram Bordoloi’s case (supra).”

AOR Sanjay Kapur represented the Appellant while Senior Advocate Devashish Bharuka represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The Respondent joined the Bank as a messenger in 1997. In April 2008, complaints were received against the respondent for taking a bribe for sanctioning loans. The Bank issued a formal Memo of Charge and the Inquiry Officer held the respondent guilty of acting as a middleman for sanction and disbursement of loans at the branch by taking illegal gratification, and his unauthorised absence from duty was also proved.

The punishment of ‘dismissal from service’ was imposed upon the respondent. Aggrieved against the same, the respondent preferred a statutory appeal. Taking a compassionate view, the Appellate Authority reduced the penalty from ‘dismissal’ to ‘removal from service’ with superannuation benefits. The Single Bench allowed a writ petition before the High Court and granted liberty to initiate fresh proceedings against the petitioner therein, including all other persons involved in the said misconduct. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the intra-Court appeal by the Division Bench, the Bank approached the Apex Court.

Reasoning

The Bench explained the legal position with regard to interference in inquiries or the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority in exercise of powers of judicial review. Coming to the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the opinion expressed by the Single Bench that the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority were based on conjecture and surmises, could not be legally sustained. It was for the reason that if the entire evidence was perused, there was no error in the findings recorded. These were based on preponderance of probabilities, and strict proof of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt was not required.

The Bench also noticed the fact recorded by the Disciplinary Authority, when the respondent appeared in response to a show cause notice before the imposition of a penalty. This pointed towards the direction where he admitted his guilt and had sought mercy. He had made a request to be forgiven if knowingly or unknowingly, any mistake was made by him. Leniency was shown by the Appellate Authority by reducing the penalty from ‘dismissal’ to ‘removal from service’ with superannuation benefits.

Allowing the appeals, the Bench set aside the impugned orders of the Single Bench and the Division Bench. “The order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 07.12.2012 imposing punishment of ‘removal from service’ with superannuation benefits stands restored”, it held.

Cause Title: State Bank of India v. Ramadhar Sao (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1010)

Appearance

Appellant: AOR Sanjay Kapur, Advocates Surya Prakash, Shubhra Kapur, Mahima Kapur, Akankasha Bhatia, Annu Mishra

Respondent: Senior Advocate Devashish Bharuka, AOR Rita Jha, Advocate Sarvshree

Click here to read/download Judgment