Case Note & Summary
The present appeal by the State Bank of India (the Bank) challenges the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka dated 20.10.2010, which dismissed the Bank's appeal and confirmed the Single Judge's order quashing the punishment imposed on the respondent, A.G.D. Reddy. The respondent, a Field Officer at the Mahadevapura Branch, was charged with misconduct including recommending and obtaining sanction of credit limits without proper inspection, permitting excess drawings, and failing to report to controlling office. A charge sheet dated 13.02.1992 was issued. The enquiry officer, based on evidence, found the charges proved. The Appointing Authority, by order dated 31.01.1995, imposed a punishment of reduction in basic pay to the lowest stage in Scale-I under Rule 49(e) of the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules and treated the suspension period as suspension only. The respondent filed a writ petition, which was allowed by the Single Judge on 12.11.2003, quashing the punishment and granting consequential benefits. The Bank's appeal to the Division Bench was dismissed on 20.10.2010. The Bank then appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court considered whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in judicial review. The Bank argued that the courts below transgressed the limits of judicial review by characterizing the disciplinary authorities' orders as perverse. The respondent contended that the case was one of 'no evidence' as the enquiry officer relied on personal knowledge without evidence. The Supreme Court, after examining the facts, held that the High Court had exceeded its limits of judicial review. The Court found that the disciplinary authority's findings were not perverse and were based on evidence. The Court restored the punishment of reduction in basic pay to the lowest stage in Scale-I, but modified the order regarding the suspension period, directing that the period be treated as not spent on duty for the purpose of back wages, but not as a punishment. The appeal was allowed in part.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Judicial Review - Limits of Court's Interference - Courts can interfere only if findings are perverse or based on no evidence - In the present case, the High Court set aside the punishment of reduction in basic pay imposed by the Appointing Authority under Rule 49(e) of the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules - The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its limits of judicial review by re-appreciating evidence and substituting its own findings - Held that the disciplinary authority's findings were not perverse and the punishment was proportionate (Paras 1-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in judicial review by characterizing the disciplinary authority's findings as perverse and setting aside the punishment of reduction in basic pay.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed in part. The order of the High Court is set aside. The punishment of reduction in basic pay to the lowest stage in Scale-I is restored. The period of suspension shall be treated as not spent on duty for the purpose of back wages, but not as a punishment.
Law Points
- Judicial review of disciplinary proceedings is limited to perversity or no evidence
- Enquiry officer cannot rely on personal knowledge without evidence
- Punishment must be proportionate to misconduct
