The Supreme Court of India, in a significant pronouncement on procedural law in departmental proceedings, has held that a Disciplinary Authority is not required to record detailed reasons for imposing a punishment if it concurs with the findings of the Inquiry Officer’s report.
A bench comprising Justice Rajesh Bindal and Justice Manmohan reaffirmed this legal position while setting aside a judgment of the Patna High Court. The High Court had quashed the penalty of an SBI messenger found guilty of taking bribes. The Supreme Court restored the punishment of ‘removal from service’, holding that the High Court had erred in interfering with the disciplinary process.
Background of the Case
The matter concerned Ramadhar Sao, who joined the State Bank of India (‘the Bank’) as a messenger in 1997. In 2008, complaints were lodged against Sao, alleging he was taking bribes to facilitate the sanctioning of loans.
Following a preliminary notice, the Bank issued a formal Memo of Charge on January 5, 2010, accusing Sao of acting as a “middleman,” taking “illegal gratification,” and unauthorized absence from duty. An inquiry officer, after conducting a detailed inquiry, submitted a report on October 4, 2010, finding Sao guilty of all charges. The Disciplinary Authority, concurring with the report, imposed the penalty of ‘dismissal from service’ on January 8, 2011.
On a statutory appeal, the Appellate Authority took a “compassionate view” and modified the penalty to ‘removal from service’ with superannuation benefits on December 7, 2012. Sao challenged this before the Patna High Court, where a Single Bench set aside the punishment. The Bank’s subsequent intra-court appeal was also dismissed, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Arguments of the Parties
The counsel for the appellant Bank contended that the High Court had exceeded its limited scope of judicial review, which is confined to procedural errors and not an appeal on merits. The Bank asserted that the principles of natural justice were fully complied with during the inquiry.
Conversely, the counsel for the respondent, Ramadhar Sao, argued that he was a “scapegoat” and a low-level employee with no authority to sanction loans. He submitted that senior officers were responsible for any irregularities.
The Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court’s analysis focused primarily on the established principles governing judicial review of disciplinary actions. The bench held that the High Court had erred by interfering with the reasoned findings of the inquiry.
Reaffirming the central legal issue, the Court cited its precedent in Boloram Bordoloi v. Lakhimi Gaolia Bank and Others (2021) to underscore the point that a disciplinary authority need not provide an elaborate order when it agrees with the inquiry report. The judgment stated:
“…it is well settled that if the disciplinary authority accepts the findings recorded by the enquiry officer and passes an order, no detailed reasons are required to be recorded in the order imposing punishment. The punishment is imposed based on the findings recorded in the enquiry report, as such, no further elaborate reasons are required to be given by the disciplinary authority.”
The Court also reiterated the limited scope of judicial review, citing SBI v. Ajai Kumar Srivastava (2021), and observing that constitutional courts cannot act as an appellate authority to re-adjudicate the case on its merits.
The judgment criticized the High Court’s reasoning that the findings were based on “conjuncture and surmises,” pointing to the evidence of five loanees who “categorically deposed that they had paid money to the respondents.” Furthermore, the Supreme Court noted that Sao himself had indirectly admitted his guilt when he appeared before the Disciplinary Authority and stated, “Knowingly or unknowingly whatever mistake I have made, please forgive me.”
Decision
Concluding that the orders passed by the High Court could not be legally sustained, the Supreme Court allowed the Bank’s appeal. The order of the Appellate Authority dated December 7, 2012, imposing the punishment of ‘removal from service’ with superannuation benefits on Ramadhar Sao, was restored.
