APHC010615252013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3457] FRIDAY,THE EIGHTH DAY OF MAY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH.N WRIT PETITION NO: 34110/2013 Between: 1. N. SESHU BABU, S/O N. RAM BABU, AGED 30 YEARS, OFFICER, JMGS-1 [UNDER ORDERS OF REMOVAL] STATE BANK OF INDIA, RAJAHMUNDRY BRANCH, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT, R/O H.NO.13-481, SECTOR-2 ARILOVA, AMBEDKAR NAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM 530040. ...PETITIONER AND 1. GENERAL MANAGER NET WORKIII AND APPOINTING AUTHORITY, STATE BANK OF INDIA, HEAD OFFICE BANK STREET, KOTI, HYDERABAD 2. DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS CELL, STATE BANK OF INDIA, PATNY CENTRE, HYDERABAD ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE-II SECUNDERABAD REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, BUSINESS AND OPERATIONS-II DIVISION. 3. THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, HEAD OFFICE, BANK STREET, KOTI, HYDERABAD. 4. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE, RAJAHMUNDRY, EAST GODAVARI DISTRICT. 5. THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, CIRCLE VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT, STATE BANK OF INDIA, HEAD OFFICE, BANK STREET, KOTI, HYDERABAD. 6. THE REGIONAL MANAGER, REGIONAL BUSINESS OFFICE, STATE BANK OF INDIA, WARANGAL NOW WORKING AS ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, CIRCLE VIGILANCE DEPARTMENT, STATE BANK OF INDIA, HEAD OFFICE, BANK STREET, KOTI, HYDERABAD. 7. THE BRANCH MANAGER, STATE BANK OF INDIA, BATTALA BAZAR BRANCH, WARANGAL DISTRICT NOW WORKING AS CHIEF MANAGER, STATE BANK LEARNING CENTRE, GACHIBOWLI, HYDERABAD 8. THE CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, STATE BANK OF INDIA, GROUND FLOOR, LEKH RAJ BUILDING, OPPOSITE SAKI NAKA POST OFFICE, SAID VIHAR ROAD, ANDHERI EAST - SAKINAKA, MUMBAI - 400 072. ...RESPONDENT(S): Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased toto issue a writ order or direction more in the nature of writ of mandamus declaring Proceedings, dt.04-11-2013 issued by the 1st Respondent and the order, dt.03-02-2023 issued by the 3rd Respondent as communicated vide proceedings No A R/SDP/1475, dt.22-02-2023 by the 2nd Respondent is concerned as arbitrary, illegal, malafide, discriminatory and unconstitutional violating the principles of natural justice violating Article 14,16 and 21 apart from violating Article 311 2 of the Constitution of India and ultra virus to the State Bank of India Service Rules for Customer Relationship Executives 2007 contrary to the law laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Srimanta Pratim Barooah vs State Bank of India and Ors, dt.25 June, 2002 by Hon ble High Court, Guwahati, as well as contrary to the law laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court reported in Deokinandan Sharma vs Union of India ors on 11 April, 2001 reported in AIR 2001 SC 1767, and set aside the same, and issue consequential directions, directing the respondents to forthwith reinstate the petitioner into service with all consequential benefits and pass Main Prayer amended/substituted as per Court Order dated 28.03.2024 vide I.A.No. 1/2023 in WP No.34110/2013. IA NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP 42434 OF 2013 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the operation in so far as it relates to the Proceedings Dated 04.11.2013 issued by the 1st respondent as communicated by the 2nd respondent by Proceedings No. DPC/A0-2/HYD/VIG/09 dated 07.11.2013 is concerned, with a direction to forthwith reinstate the petitioner into service, pending disposal of the writ petition. IA NO: 1 OF 2016(WPMP 43265 OF 2016 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased direct the Respondents to consider the Appeal dated 30-8-2016 of the Petitioner for reinstatement into service with all consequential benefits and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2017(WPMP 17246 OF 2017 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased suspend the Proceedings No. Ref. No.HR/A&R/67 dt:- 14-03-2017 issued by the 5th Respondent and consequently direct the Respondent No. 3 to dispose of the Appeal dt:- 30-08-2016 file by the petitioner on merits without reference to the delay and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to amend the prayer by incorporating the proceedings "A& R/SDP/1475, dt.22-02-2023 communicated by the 5th Respondent of the order of Appellate Authority, dt.03-02-2023" after the words in the 6th line of main prayer, "dt.04-11-2013" and before the words "is concerned" and to pass IA NO: 1 OF 2024 Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased pleased to grant leave to the petitioners/respondents 1 to 8 herein to file the counter affidavit in W.P.No. 34110 of 2013 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. A RAJENDRA BABU Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. B S PRASAD 2. VENKATA RAMA RAO KOTA The Court made the following: Date of reserve : 30.04.2026 Date of pronouncement : 08.05.2026 Date of Upload : 08.05.2026 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N WRIT PETITION No.34110 of 2013 ORDER : The petitioner is aggrieved by the order of termination dated 04.11.2013 issued by the 1st respondent and subsequent orders dated 04.03.2023 issued by the 3rd respondent. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Customer Relationship Executive with the respondent on contract basis on 29.07.2008. The petitioner was subsequently appointed as Customer Relationship Officer on 02.08.2010. The petitioner initially worked in the state of Telangana and thereafter was transferred to Rajahmundry branch in the year 2012. 3. It is submitted that a complaint was lodged on 11.04.2011 alleging embezzlement of funds in connivance with the Assistant Manager while working at Warangal branch. It is submitted that the said complaint was withdrawn on 30.04.2011, however, a preliminary report was submitted by the Chief Manager, Khammam. 4. Proceedings were initiated on 30.08.2012 and the petitioner was called upon to submit his explanation. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated on 26.12.2012 and allegations were leveled against the petitioner. It is submitted that the petitioner submitted a detailed explanation for each of the allegations and the Enquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer were appointed. It is submitted that the enquiry was conducted without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner. It is submitted that the findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse. It is also submitted that the allegation relating to bribe is unfounded as there was no evidence to substantiate the said allegation. 5. It is a specific case of the petitioner that no witness was examined for substantiating the charges. It is submitted that during pendency of the present writ petition, the petitioner had challenged the orders of termination by filing an appeal before the Appellate Authority on 30.08.2016. The Appellate Authority rejected the appeal. The petitioner challenged the rejection of appeal and filed W.P.M.P.No.17246 of 2017 and on 07.11.2022 this Court directed the respondents to consider the appeal on merits and pass appropriate orders. The Appellate Authority rejected the appeal on 03.02.2023 which was communicated to the petitioner on 22.02.2023. The petitioner has sought amendment of the prayer in the present writ petition challenging the rejection of appeal. 6. It is submitted that all the allegations which were leveled against the petitioner were relating to the period during which the petitioner was working on a Contract Basis as a Customer Relationship Officer. It is submitted that the role of a Customer Relationship Officer is very limited and is confined to assisting the customers who approached the bank for various works. 7. It is submitted that a contract employee does not have the power of approving any loan or recommend sanction of any loan. It is also submitted 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. 8. The learned standing counsel appearing for the respondent submits that the scope of this Court in reassessing the findings of the Enquiry Officer is limited and that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate the violation of the principles of natural justice or violation of the Rules of Bank in conducting the enquiry. In absence of any deviation from the standard procedure, the writ petition cannot be maintained. 9. It is submitted that the S.B.I. Service Rules were made applicable and the appointment letter of the petitioner would make it amply clear that the Service Regulations are made applicable. It is submitted that P.W.1 was examined and he was also cross-examined. It is also submitted that the respondent authority had extended a fair and reasonable opportunity to the petitioner for defending himself and the petitioner was also permitted to utilize the services of a defence Assistant. 10. It is submitted that the Enquiry Officer has conducted a thorough enquiry into the allegations and adequate material was placed before the Enquiry Officer by the Presenting Officer and it was clinchingly established that the petitioner along with other charged officers were found guilty of misconduct. It is submitted that the Field Officer was also charged off similar allegations was terminated from service and he had subsequently passed away. It is submitted that no grounds are made out by the petitioner which warrant interference by this Court at this stage. 11. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing counsel for the respondent. Perused the material on record. 12. The short point for consideration is whether the impugned proceedings terminating the petitioner from service and the subsequent proceedings rejecting the petitioner’s appeal on merits deserve to be interfered on the present set of facts and circumstances. 13. In order to determine this issue, the law is settled on the scope of this Court in unsettling the findings of a enquiry authority leading to imposing of punishment by the disciplinary authority. 14. The law on the aspect of judicial review is settled in the following judgments. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited Vs. Western Geco International Limited1, Administrator, Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli Vs. Gulabhia M.Lad2, Disciplinary Authority – Cum – Regional Manager & Others Vs. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik3, Rae Bareli Kshetriya Gramin Bank Vs. Bholanath Singh & Others4 . 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 conscious 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. 1 (2014) 9 SCC 263 2 (2010) 5 SCC 775 3 (1996) 9 SCC 69 4 (1997) 3 SC 657 15. In the matter of Bank of India & another Vs. Degala Suryanarayana5, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that strict rules of evidence is 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 reasonable person acting reasonably and with objectivity may arrive at a finding upholding the gravamen of the charge against the delinquent officer. The Court exercising the jurisdiction of the judicial review would not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the departmental enquiry proceeding except in a case of malafides or perversity i.e., where there is no evidence to support a finding or where a finding is such that no man acting reasonably and with objectivity could have arrived at that finding. The Court cannot embark upon re-appreciating the evidence or weighing the same like an appellate authority so long as there is some evidence to support the conclusion. 16. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India and others Vs. M.Duraisamy Civil Appeal.No.2665 of 2002. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the jurisdiction of High Court on the proportionality of the order of departmental authority is limited. It is observed that it cannot be set aside a well-reasoned order only on grounds of sympathy and sentiments. It is further observed and held that once it is found that all the procedural requirements had been complied with, courts would not 5 (1999) 5 SCC 762 ordinarily interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed upon a delinquent employee. It is further observed that the superior courts, only in some cases may invoke the doctrine of proportionality, however if the decision of an employer is found to be within the legal parameters, the doctrine would ordinarily not be invoked when the misconduct stands proved. 17. 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 Hon’ble Supreme Court of India. 18. 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. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner. 19. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stands closed. ___________________ JUSTICE HARINATH.N KGM THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE HARINATH. N WRIT PETITION No.34110 of 2013 Dated 08.05.2026 KGM