Non-supply of Enquiry Report Invalidates Penalty Before 20-11-1990; Rule 51(2) Upholds Proceedings Without Speaking Order

The SC held that non-supply of the Enquiry Officer's report before imposing penalty is impermissible for orders before 20-11-1990, per precedent. The appellate order's lack of a speaking order does not invalidate proceedings under Rule 51(2). Findings on misconduct charges were supported by evidence and not perverse; the HC erred in interfering. The HC and Administrative Tribunal lack appellate jurisdiction to alter punishment if inquiry complies with natural justice. Judicial review under Art. 226 is limited to ensuring fairness and does not permit reappraisal of evidence or penalty appropriateness. Interference with punishment is allowed only if it is arbitrary, capricious, or mala fide. Reconsideration of penalty severity is for disciplinary or appellate authorities, not courts.

---

---

ISSUES:

Whether non-supply of the Enquiry Officer's report before imposing penalty vitiates the order of punishment.Whether an appellate order not being a speaking order violates Rule 51(2) of the State Bank of India (Supervisory Staff) Service Rules.Whether findings of the Enquiry Officer and disciplinary authority on charges of misconduct are based on no evidence and thus perverse.Whether the High Court or Administrative Tribunal can interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority in service matters.Scope and limits of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution in disciplinary proceedings against public servants.

RULINGS / HOLDINGS:

Non-supply of the Enquiry Officer's report prior to imposing penalty is not sustainable in law for orders passed before 20th November 1990, following the Constitution Bench decision in Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v. B. Karunakar.The appellate order's failure to be a speaking order does not per se invalidate the disciplinary proceedings under Rule 51(2) of the Service Rules.The findings of the Enquiry Officer and disciplinary authority on charges 1, 2, 3, and 5 are supported by evidence and are not perverse; the High Court erred in holding otherwise by misreading the findings.The High Court and Administrative Tribunal do not have jurisdiction akin to an appellate authority to interfere with the punishment imposed if the inquiry is conducted in accordance with rules and principles of natural justice.Judicial review under Article 226 is limited to ensuring fair treatment and compliance with natural justice; it is not an appeal on the merits or appropriateness of punishment.

RATIONALE:

The Court applied the statutory framework of the State Bank of India (Supervisory Staff) Service Rules and principles of natural justice governing disciplinary proceedings.The Court relied on precedent including the Constitution Bench ruling in Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v. B. Karunakar regarding procedural requirements for penalty imposition.It followed established jurisprudence that where there is "some evidence" supporting findings of misconduct, courts will not reappraise evidence or substitute their own findings (State of Andhra Pradesh v. S. Sree Rama Rao).The Court emphasized the distinction between judicial review and appellate jurisdiction, reiterating that the High Court cannot interfere with penalty unless it is "arbitrary and capricious" or mala fide (State of Orissa v. Bidyabhushan Mohapatra; Union of India v. Parma Nanda).The Court clarified that decisions in Tulsiram Patel and Shankar Das concerning interference with penalty apply to cases under proviso (a) to Article 311(2) and not to penalties imposed after regular inquiry.The Court noted that while the penalty of removal may be harsh, reconsideration of punishment is a matter for the disciplinary or appellate authority, not the High Court or Tribunal.

---