Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010208142024 undefined THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : WA/385/2025 1: THE STATE BANK OF INDIA AND 3 ORS. REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, SBI, LOCAL HEAD OFFICE, GUWAHATI, ASSAM- 781006. 2: THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (B AND O) SBI JORHAT ZONE M.G. ROAD JORHAT-785001 ASSAM. 3: THE GENERAL MANAGER (NW-II) SBI LOCAL HEAD OFFICE GUWAHATI ASSAM PIN-781006. 4: THE REGIONAL MANAGER REGION-I SBI JORHAT ZONE M.G. ROAD JORHAT ASSAM PIN-785001 VERSUS RAJA GOPAL DHAR SON OF SHRI BIMAL BHUSHAN DHAR, RESIDENT OF FOREST TILLA COLONY, LUMDING, ASSAM-782447. For the Appellant(s) : Mr. A.K. Sahewalla, Advocate. Mr. S. Sengupta, Advocate. For the Respondent(s) : Mr. P. Bhowmick, Advocate. Mr. D. Kalita, Advocate. – B E F O R E – HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ASHUTOSH KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN DEV CHOUDHURY 27.04.2026 (Ashutosh Kumar, CJ) We have heard Mr. A.K. Sahewalla, learned Advocate for the appellants and Mr. P. Bhowmick, learned Advocate for the sole Page No.# 2/6 respondent. The employer/State Bank of India/appellant has questioned the judgment dated 22.08.2024 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in WP(C) No.1844/2015, whereby the punishment imposed upon the respondent has been interfered with and has been reduced to only reduction in the pay to a lower stage in the time scale of pay by one stage for 1(one) year without any cumulative effect with no adverse effect on his future service benefits. The interference has been questioned on the ground that the learned Single Judge wrongly construed the provisions contained in Rule 67 of the State Bank of India Officers' Service Rules, 1992 (hereinafter to be referred as the “Rules of 1992”), which provides for minor and major penalties and specifies that a delinquent could be punished under any one or more of the penalties prescribed for any act of misconduct or for any other good or sufficient reason(s) to be recorded in writing. The learned Single Judge interfered with the punishment on the ground that the net effect of the punishment imposed by the Appellate Authority would have had the effect of merging of 2(two) independent minor penalties. A disciplinary action was initiated against the respondent while he was serving as an Assistant Manager at the Titabor Branch in Jorhat, Assam. Certain lapses were found which were relatable to the irregularities in the duties performed by the respondent. 4(four) specific charges were levelled against him and in the departmental enquiry, 2(two) of the charges stood proved. However, the Disciplinary Authority disagreed and concluded that all the 4(four) charges were established. Consequently, Page No.# 3/6 the Appointing Authority imposed a major penalty under Rule 67(f) of the Rules of 1992, namely, of reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay by one stage for 1(one) year with no increment during that period and the reduction having a postponing effect on future increments. This was challenged by the respondent before the Appellate Authority, which, in its wisdom, modified the penalty by removing the postponing effect on future increments but rest of the penalty was upheld. A review petition preferred by the respondent was rejected. The respondent thereafter, preferred a writ petition before this Court in which the learned Single Judge concluded that the charges against the respondent were of trivial in nature for which the imposition of the penalty in question by the Disciplinary and the Appellate Authorities was highly disproportionate and harsh. As such, the already reduced penalty was further modified to the extent that it was restricted only to withholding of increments for the period in question without any cumulative effect with no adverse effect on the respondent with respect to his future service benefits. Mr. Sahewalla, learned Advocate for the appellant/Bank submitted that if at all the learned Single Judge was of the view that the respondent ought not to have been punished, the only option for him was to remand the case to the Disciplinary Authority to decide the matter from the stage of the vulnerability which was noticed by the learned Single Judge, i.e. at the stage of imposition of penalty. Under normal circumstances, the penalty ought not to have been interfered with, more so, when the Appellate Authority had already diluted the rigor of the Page No.# 4/6 penalty which was originally imposed upon the respondent by the Disciplinary Authority. He has further submitted that the logic employed by the learned Single Judge that withholding of increment of pay with or without cumulative effect is a separate penalty under Rule 67(b) of the Rules of 1992 and reduction to a lower stage in time scale of pay for a period without cumulative effect is again a separate penalty under Rule 67(e) of the Rules of 1992. It was thus erroneously presumed by the learned Single Judge, Mr. Sahewalla contends, that the 2(two) penalties imposed upon the respondent were merged into one which was not permissible. The observation of the learned Single Judge, it has been further argued, that the penalties of the year 2013 and, therefore, as on date the same has spent its force, is also not understandable. It becomes nugatory only with the modification in the sentence by the learned Single Judge and not otherwise. We have perused the judgment impugned and the materials on record and we find that for altering the sentence imposed upon the respondent/employee, the learned Single Judge was swayed by the fact that the materials in evidence to substantiate the charge against the respondent was such that interference with the quantum of punishment was required. The first of the charges against the respondent was with respect to registration of mobile number of a customer, who had applied for Mobile Banking Service and that the respondent was instrumental in registering a different number, without verifying the telephone number of that customer. In this context, the learned Single Judge was of the view Page No.# 5/6 that the Mobile Banking Service was started only very recently in Banks and the employees had been working at the breeding edge of the new computer technology. The training was imparted to only few of the personnel of the Bank and not the respondent. The respondent, according to the learned Single Judge, was the Assistant Manager, who was not even entrusted with the task of verification process. So far as the second allegation was concerned, it was associated with the first charge, namely, that Mobile Banking Service could be permitted only in the Home Branch of the Bank and allowing it in the Branch where he was posted only smacked of his negligence. So far as the 2(two) other charges against the respondent was concerned, which pertain to defalcation of certain amount of a customer by misuse of a surrendered ATM Card, that also could be attributed only to negligence of the respondent in not getting the surrendered ATM cards destroyed. It was further found out by the learned Single Judge that there were no materials to indicate that the respondent was involved in any fraudulent activity and that the responsibility of the safe keeping or destruction of the surrendered ATM Cards was on the Branch Manager and not on the respondent, who was only an Assistant Manager in the Bank. The last of the charges was of not immediately deactivating or destroying the ATM Cards was also not attributable to the sole duty of the respondent/employee. On all these grounds, the learned Single Judge concluded that the offence for which the respondent was charged was so trivial that it required a minor punishment of reduction to one stage lower in the pay Page No.# 6/6 scale with no cumulative effect for a period of 1(one) year. In view of the afore-noted findings of the learned Single Judge and further reduction of the penalty, which had been reduced to a large extent by the Appellate Authority, we are of the view that the same is not required to be interfered with. The respondent has already suffered the reduction in the pay scale for 1(one) year which, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is condign and suffices. What is necessary to be noted is that the punishment must suit the offence and the offender as well. The respondent appears to have overworked to have the money which was diverted to claw it back to the Bank. For the afore-noted reasons, we are not inclined to interfere with the judgment dated 22.08.2024 passed by the learned Single. The appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant