2022 (5) TMI 1485 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Upholds Enquiry Officer's Decision

State Bank of India & Anr. Versus K.S. Vishwanath

State Bank of India & Anr. Versus K.S. Vishwanath - TMI Issues Involved:1. Legality of the High Court's interference with the findings of the Enquiry Officer.2. Adequacy and reliability of evidence in the departmental enquiry.3. Impact of the respondent's acquittal in criminal proceedings on the disciplinary action.4. Proportionality of the punishment of dismissal from service.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legality of the High Court's Interference with the Findings of the Enquiry Officer:The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in interfering with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, which were based on the appreciation of evidence on record. The High Court reappreciated the evidence, which is not permissible under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. The Court cited multiple precedents, including *State of Karnataka vs. N. Ganga Raj* and *B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India*, to emphasize that judicial review is limited to the decision-making process and not the reappreciation of evidence. The Court concluded that the High Court acted beyond its jurisdiction by re-evaluating the evidence and substituting its own findings for those of the Enquiry Officer and the disciplinary authority.2. Adequacy and Reliability of Evidence in the Departmental Enquiry:The Supreme Court noted that the Enquiry Officer's findings were based on substantial evidence, including the testimonies of nine witnesses and 41 documents. The evidence established that the delinquent officer prepared a fraudulent letter, presented it at the Peenya Industrial Estate Branch, and withdrew Rs.10 lakhs, which was not accounted for at the SSI Peenya II Stage Branch. The Court held that the management had successfully proven the complicity of the delinquent officer. It was emphasized that the High Court should not have reappreciated the evidence, as the findings of the Enquiry Officer were supported by substantial evidence.3. Impact of the Respondent's Acquittal in Criminal Proceedings on the Disciplinary Action:The Supreme Court clarified that the acquittal of the respondent in criminal proceedings does not invalidate the disciplinary proceedings. The Court noted that the standards of proof in criminal and departmental proceedings are different. The respondent was acquitted in the criminal case by being given the benefit of doubt, which does not affect the findings of guilt in the departmental enquiry. The Court cited precedents, including *State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaya*, to support this view.4. Proportionality of the Punishment of Dismissal from Service:The Supreme Court held that the punishment of dismissal from service was not disproportionate to the misconduct proved against the delinquent officer. The Court considered the seriousness of the charge, which involved the misappropriation of Rs.10 lakhs, and the modus operandi adopted by the officer. It was noted that the officer introduced another person as a new cashier to ensure that there was no direct evidence of him receiving the money, demonstrating a criminal mind. The Court concluded that the disciplinary authority was justified in imposing the penalty of dismissal.Conclusion:The Supreme Court quashed the judgment and order of the Division Bench of the High Court, which had dismissed the appeal and confirmed the Single Judge's order setting aside the punishment. The Court restored the order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority, thereby allowing the appeal filed by the appellant Bank.