‘Must shock conscience for review’: Andhra Pradesh High Court refuses to save SBI employee fired over fraud

Justice Harinath N heard the matter on May 8.

Justice Bahu added that, on the facts on hand in the present case, the petitioner could not place his case for judicial review by this court on the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority.

Case of bank employee and allegation of embezzlement

The petitioner was originally appointed as a customer relationship executive on a contract basis in 2008 and later transitioned to a customer relationship officer role in 2010 at SBI. The petitioner initially worked in the SBI branch of the state of Telangana and thereafter was transferred to the Rajahmundry branch of the SBI in the year 2012.

While he was stationed at the Warangal branch of SBI, a complaint was lodged in April 2011 alleging that he had embezzled funds in connivance with an assistant manager. Then the complaint was withdrawn on April 30, 2011, however, a preliminary report was submitted by the Chief Manager, Khammam.

Following a preliminary report and a formal disciplinary inquiry initiated in December 2012, he was found guilty of misconduct and was terminated from service on November 4, 2013.

The petitioner claimed that no witness was examined to substantiate the charges, and, in 2016, he filed a plea before the appellate authority challenging his termination order. The appellate authority rejected the appeal.

Then, the petitioner moved to the high court and challenged the appellate authority’s order, where the court directed the bank to consider the appeal on the merits and pass appropriate orders. After this legal process, his removal was upheld, leading him to seek judicial review of his termination order.

Petitioner’s case

Appearing for the petitioner, advocate A Rajendra Babu submitted that the allegations which were leveled against the petitioner related to the period during which the petitioner was working on a contract basis as a customer relationship officer in SBI.

It is submitted that the role of a customer relationship officer is very limited and is confined to assisting the customers who approach the bank for various works.

It is submitted that a contract employee does not have the power to approve any loan or recommend the sanction of any loan.

Hr argued that the role of the petitioner never granted access to the petitioner to handle accounts of any of the customers; as such, the findings of the enquiry officer are perverse.

Court’s findings

• The short point for consideration is whether the proceedings terminating the petitioner from service, and the subsequent proceedings rejecting the petitioner’s appeal on merits, deserve to be interfered with on the present set of facts and circumstances.
• In order to determine this issue, the law is settled on the scope of this court in unsettling the findings of an enquiry authority leading to the imposition of punishment by the disciplinary authority.
• The law on the aspect of judicial review is settled in these judgments.
• Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited v Western Geco International Limited, Administrator, Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli v Gulabhia M Lad, Disciplinary Authority – Cum – Regional Manager and Others v Nikunja Bihari Patnaik, Rae Bareli Kshetriya Gramin Bank v Bholanath Singh and Others.
• In all these judgments, the legal position with respect to exercising the power of judicial review is settled.
• Unless and until any illegality or procedural irregularity which would shock the conscience of the court or tribunal, the discretion can be exercised.

• It may not matter as to whether there was no loss which resulted by the acts of the charged officer.
• In the matter of Bank of India and another v Degala Suryanarayana, the Supreme Court has held that strict rules of evidence are not applicable to departmental enquiry proceedings.
• The only requirement of law is that the allegation against the delinquent officer must be established by such evidence acting upon which a reasonable person acting reasonably and with objectivity may arrive at a finding upholding the gravamen of the charge against the delinquent officer.
• It is no doubt well-established law that this court can exercise its jurisdiction of judicial review if the petitioner is able to place the case of the petitioner within the exceptions carved out by the established law and the various decisions of the Supreme Court.