As per case facts, petitioner, a Field Officer at SBI, faced charges for irregularities in sanctioning loans against warehouse receipts, allegedly causing financial loss. He retired during the departmental inquiry. ...
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3395
1 WP. No. 7096 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANAND SINGH BAHRAWAT
WRIT PETITION No. 7096 of 2011
A. K. JAIN
Versus
THE CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER & APPELLATE AUTHORITY
STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Appearance:
Shri M.K. Sharma and Shri Alok Sharma – Advocates for petitioner.
Shri Piyush Chaturvedi - Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3 and 5.
Reserved on: 19.12.2025
Pronounced on : 28.01.2026
___________________________________________________________________
ORDER
This petition, under Article 226 of Constitution of India, has been filed
seeking the following relief (s):-
“(i) That, the dismissal order which is patently illegal and not
valid, issued by the Disciplinary Authority vide their letter
reference no.VIG/AVK/1109 dated 06.12.2010 Annexure P/6 and
subsequent confirmation order by appellate authority dated
06.06.2011 (Annexure P/8) imposed upon the Petitioner, the
penalty of dismissal from service in terms of Rule No.67(j) of State
Bank of India Officer Service Rule 1992 is liable to be quashed
being irrational and harsh and discriminatory in view of the minor
penalty so awarded to the Respondents No.4 and 5 for the same act
or omission under the joint liability in view of minor penalty
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3395
2 WP. No. 7096 of 2011
imposed on Respondents no.4 and 5 for the same acts/omission or
alleged misconduct (Annexure P/9 in colly).
(ii)That, the Petitioner is liable to get his Pensionary, Gratuity,
C.P.F. etc. benefits as he serve the establishments of SBI for more
than 39 years dedicatly and blotlessly, with interest alongwith
arrears w.e.f. 01.09.2010, since during the pendency of the D.E, he
retired on superannuation on 31.08.2010.
(iii)That, Rs.50,000/- for mental agony and also the cost of
unwanted litigation before this Hon'ble Court.
(iv)That, any other reliefs which this Hon'ble Court deems fit
may kindly be also awarded.”
A.Submission of Petitioner :
2.It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner was initially
appointed as Agriculture Assistant vide order dated 16.12.1970. Thereafter, again
petitioner was appointed as Rural Development Officer in respondent/Bank by
order dated 05.07.1979 and by order dated 01.08.1985 petitioner was promoted
to the post of MMGS-II Officer in SBI. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted
that at the relevant point of time i.e. in the year 2007 when petitioner was posted
as Field Officer, there was a scheme of Bank floated for providing loans to
farmers called as “Private Warehouse-Produce Marketing Loan Scheme”. Being
a field officer, petitioner had responsibility of receiving loan applications related
documents, ensuring authenticity of them, preparing proposals and
recommending them to sanctioning authority. It is submitted that respondent
No.4, sanctioning authority, was under no obligation to sanction each and every
recommended proposal. It is submitted that explanation was called from
petitioner regarding some alleged irregularities in sanction of demand loans
against warehouse receipts at Naugaon Branch in District Chhatarpur. Thereafter,
petitioner submitted reply vide Annexure P-2 dated 19.06.2009 explaining that at
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3395
3 WP. No. 7096 of 2011
the time of sanctioning of loan, warehouse receipts (WHR) were backed with
adequate stocks and at the time of periodic inspections, stock was found to be
diluted by the warehouse owner fraudulently, for which petitioner requested to
lodge FIR against warehouse owner M/s B.D. More Warehouse. Learned counsel
for petitioner submitted that without considering the explanation submitted by
petitioner charge-sheet dated 26.10.2009 was issued alleging two charges with 6
and 4 allegations respectively. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that
similar and identical charge-sheets were issued to respondents No.4 and 5, the
then Branch Manager and another Field Officer making same allegations/charges
with different figures of alleged financial loss. It is further submitted that
thereafter petitioner submitted reply dated 16.11.2009 to charge-sheet that he
already explained the relative points in his letter dated 19.06.2009. Thereafter,
enquiry was conducted by Enquiry Officer. The disciplinary authority forwarded
the enquiry report with his dissenting note regarding allegation No.1(ii), seeking
comments from petitioner. Petitioner submitted representation dated 27.07.2010
explaining each and every allegation and submitting that none of the allegations
is proved. He also submitted that he had not done anything contrary to Rule 50(1)
and 50(4) as alleged against him. Learned counsel for petitioner further
submitted that thereafter on 31.08.2010 petitioner attained the age of
superannuation and stood retired from service of Bank. It is submitted that
thereafter disciplinary authority imposed punishment on respondent No.4 by
order dated 21.09.2010 as “reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay by
two stages for a period of two years with further direction that the officer will not
earn increments to pay during the period of such reduction and on expiry of such
period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing the future increments of
his pay” as provided under Rule 67(f) of State Bank of India Officers' Service
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3395
4 WP. No. 7096 of 2011
Rules, 1992. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that without considering
the punishment imposed on respondent No.4, on 06.12.2010 on same types of
allegations major punishment of dismissal from service under Rule 67(j) of State
Bank of India Officers' Service Rules, 1992 has been awarded by disciplinary
authority. It is further submitted that as petitioner stood already retired on
attaining the age of superannuation on 31.08.2010, services of petitioner cannot
be dismissed. To strengthen his argument, learned counsel for petitioner placed
reliance on a judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UCO
Bank & Others Vs. Prabhakar Sadashiv Karvade reported in (2018) 14 SCC
98 and UCO Bank & Others Vs. Rajendra Shankar Shukla reported in (2018)
14 SCC 92. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that after attaining the age
of superannuation, the dismissal order cannot be passed and only an order in
respect of withholding or withdrawing pension can be passed. It is further
submitted by him that thereafter by order dated 08.12.2010, the disciplinary
authority imposed punishment on respondent No.5 as “reduction to a lower stage
in the time scale of pay by two stages for a period of two years with further
direction that the officer will not earn increments to pay during the period of
such reduction and on expiry of such period, the reduction will have the effect of
postponing the future increments of his pay” as provided under Rule 67(f) of
State Bank of India Officers' Service Rules, 1992. Learned counsel for petitioner
submitted that on the same type of allegations, minor punishment has been
imposed upon respondents No.4 and 5 and without considering the punishment
of respondents No.4 and 5, punishment of dismissal from service has been
imposed upon petitioner which is discriminatory. Reliance has been placed on a
judgment dated 11.09.2024 rendered by Division Bench of Delhi High Court in
the case of Punjab And Sindh Bank Vs. Sh. Raj Kumar. It is also submitted
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3395
5 WP. No. 7096 of 2011
that punishment of dismissal from service is shockingly disproportionate as
charge of corruption is not proved to the guilt & mere negligence without any
ulterior motive cannot invite such a harsh punishment.
3.Reliance is placed on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Union of India and others Vs. J. Ahmed, (1979) 2 SCC 286, Dev Singh Vs.
Punjab Tourism Development Corporation Ltd. and another, (2003) 8 SCC 9
and that of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Jai Kumar Bajpai (dead) through
LRs Smt. Chandrakanta W/o Jai Kumar Bajpai Vs. Chairman-Cum-
Managing Director, Madhya Pradesh State Electrical Board, Rampur, 2022
(3) M.P.L.J. 603.
4.Reliance is also placed on other Supreme Court judgments in Rajendra
Yadav Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, (2013) 3 SCC 73 , Naresh
Chandra Bhardwaj Vs. Bank of India and others, (2019) 15 SCC 786, so also
on the decision of a Division Bench of this High Court at Indore Bench in case of
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Kailash Chandra, 2021 SCC
OnLine MP 3385, on the ground that petitioner has been denied parity with co-
delinquents Shri R.K. Chouhan (since dead) and Shri Shailendra Kumar
(respondents No.4 and 5) who were working as Branch Manager/Field Officer
and who had been inflicted with punishment of “reduction to a lower stage in the
time scale of pay by two stages for a period of two years with further direction
that the officer will not earn increments to pay during the period of such
reduction and on expiry of such period, the reduction will have the effect of
postponing the future increments of his pay.”
5.Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that as per the charges levelled in
the charge-sheet, the alleged act does not come within the definition of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3395
6 WP. No. 7096 of 2011
misconduct. There may be negligence and lapse in performance of duty or errors.
Reliance has been placed on a decision rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Union of India and others Vs. J. Ahmed reported in (1979) 2 SCC 286
and decision rendered by Division Bench of this Court in the case of S.D. Bind
Vs. Union of India & Others reported in 2015(1) MPLJ 574. Learned counsel
for petitioner further submitted that petitioner alone is not responsible for alleged
misconduct as petitioner was the Field Officer at the relevant point of time and
other field officer and Manager is also responsible for the alleged misconduct.
6.It is submitted that in para 68 of judgment dated 29.11.2022 passed by I
Additional Sessions Judge, Nowgong, District Chhatarpur in ST
No.100084/2011, amount of Rs.13,69,000/- and Rs.31,56,000/- has been
recovered after auctioning Gayatri Dal Mill and B.D. More Ware house
respectively and on the same charges the criminal court has already acquitted
petitioner by judgment dated 29.11.2022 passed by I Additional Sessions Judge,
Nowgong, District Chhatarpur in ST No.100084/2011.
7. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that it is apparent from the
decision that petitioner is singled out, framed and finally discriminated for the
reasons appended below:
(i)There were 3 warehouses, whose WHR were considered for
financing to beneficiaries, namely:
(A)Maa Parwati Warehouse – 38.32 Lacs
(B)Sri Balaji Warehouse – 53.60 Lacs and
(C)B.D. More Warehouse – 82.49 Lacs
Out of these three, financing against WHR of A & B, were
considered, on the same lines, and with the same modus operandi, as of
WHRC. But 38 Accounts of these warehouses were finally and fully
recovered, giving Branch and Bank a nice business and sizable return.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3395
7 WP. No. 7096 of 2011
Advances against WHR of (C), failed only because the ware house
owner committed a fraud with the Bank and confiscated the stock
pledged to the Bank, and senior functionaries, failed to take timely
decision and there was an inordinate delay in filing FIR for the period in
question (Annexure PR/2) against the ware house owner.
(ii)Out of 82.49 Lacs, Amount Financed against WH.R of B.D. More
ware house, petitioner sanctioned 40.13 lacs, upto the date he was
working as Branch Manager in Temporary Capacity. Remaining 42.36
Lacs were Sanctioned by Shri R.K. Chauhan Permanent Br. Manager
i.e. Respondent No.4 (since dead). All these cases were recommended
by petitioner as Field Officer Only.
8.Thus, petitioner alone cannot be held responsible for the alleged
misconduct. Reliance has been placed on the judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Bongaigaon Refinery & P.C. Ltd. Vs. Girish Chandra
Sarmah reported in (2007) 7 SCC 206. Learned counsel for petitioner further
submitted that on the same set of charges, minor punishment was inflicted on
respondents No.4 (since dead) and 5, however, on the same charges major
punishment was imposed on petitioner. It is submitted that while considering the
proportionality of the punishment, distinction lies between the procedural
irregularities constituting misconduct from the acts of misappropriation of
finances, causing loss to the institution, etc. and these factors have not been
considered by respondents at the time of imposition of punishment and at the
time of considering the appeal. Reliance has been placed on a decision rendered
by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of The Managing Director State Bank of
Hyderabad and Anr. Vs. P. Kata Rao reported in (2008) 15 SCC 657, para 25
of which is reproduced below for ready reference and convenience:
“25.The Division Bench, however, disagreed with the conclusion of
imposition of stoppage of one increment. Even then it observed that in
the facts and circumstances of this case the issue relating to dismissal
of respondent needs reconsideration. It was directed:
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3395
8 WP. No. 7096 of 2011
“While doing so, the authority concerned shall keep in view the
following factors:
(i) Both the disciplinary authority and this Court in Criminal
Appeal No. 12 of 1996 found the respondent not guilty of
charges of misappropriation, deriving the personal benefit for
himself and causing loss to the Bank.
(ii) The effect of the judgment of this Court in Criminal
Appeal No. 12 of 1996 in the light of the decision of the
Supreme Court in M. Paul Anthony case [(1999) 3 SCC 679 :
1999 SCC (L&S) 810] and G.M. Tank case [G.M. Tank v. State
of Gujarat, (2006) 5 SCC 446 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1121] .
(iii) Modified punishment of withholding of increment
without cumulative effect imposed on the respondent is a minor
penalty unlike the punishment of withholding of increment with
cumulative effect, which was held to be a major penalty by the
Supreme Court in Kulwant Singh Gill case [Kulwant Singh
Gill v. State of Punjab, 1991 Supp (1) SCC 504 : 1991 SCC
(L&S) 998 : (1991) 16 ATC 940] .
(iv) While considering the proportionality of the punishment,
distinction lies between the procedural irregularities
constituting misconduct from the acts of misappropriation of
finances, causing loss to the institution, etc.”
9.Learned counsel for petitioner further submits that there is no financial loss
caused to the Bank and petitioner had worked for 39 years and during these 39
years, there are no major allegations against him and thus punishment of
dismissal from service is too harsh and disproportionate. Reliance has been
placed on a decision rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Umesh
Kumar Pahwa Vs. The Board of Directors Uttarakhand Gramin Bank &
Ors. reported in (2022) 4 SCC 385. It is submitted that thereafter petitioner
preferred appeal before the appellate authority and by order dated 06.06.2011, the
Appellate Authority rejected the appeal by a non-speaking and unreasoned order
without considering the facts and grounds raised in appeal and observing that
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3395
9 WP. No. 7096 of 2011
petitioner had a tendency to disregard the laid down systems and procedures.
Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that in the charge-sheet there is no
ground that petitioner is having tendency to disregard the laid down systems and
procedures and without giving any opportunity of being heard on the allegations
the appeal was rejected by the Appellate Authority. Learned counsel for petitioner
further submitted that on the same allegations, FIR was registered against
warehouse owner and other persons. Thereafter, the name of petitioner was
included in ST No.100084/2011. It is submitted that in the said Sessions Trial,
the Branch Manager admitted that petitioner had given the information regarding
fraud committed by the warehouse owner. It is further submitted that thereafter
by judgment dated 29.11.2022, the said Sessions Trial was decided and petitioner
was acquitted as he was not found guilty. Learned counsel for petitioner
submitted that on the same charges once the criminal court acquitted the
petitioner finding him not guilty, the disciplinary authority as well as appellate
authority must have reconsidered this aspect also.
10.It is further submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that financing from
Banks comprises two stages. In the first stage, field officer receives the
application related documents, ensures authenticity of them, prepares the
proposal and recommends it to the sanctioning authority. Branch Manager, in this
case, respondent No. 4 (since dead) sanctions it only after ensuring the
genuineness of the demand, fulfillment of various schemes of the Bank, before
sanctioning the proposals. It is submitted that it is needles to mention that
sanctioning authority is under no obligation to sanction each and every
recommended proposal, if found erratic or not confirming to the policies and
rules and regulations, circulated by the Bank from time to time. He can refuse to
sanction it. It is clearly mentioned in the circular that loan of Rs.10 Lacs can be
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3395
10 WP. No. 7096 of 2011
sanctioned per borrower within overall limit of 76.00 lacs, upper limit against
WHR of B.D. More Warehouse. It is apparent from the decision that petitioner is
singled out, framed and finally discriminated for the reasons appended below:
(i)There were 3 warehouses, whose WHR were considered for
financing to beneficiaries, namely:
(A)Maa Parwati Warehouse – 38.32 Lacs
(B)Sri Balaji Warehouse – 53.60 Lacs and
(C)B.D. More Warehouse – 82.49 Lacs
Out of these three, financing against WHIR of A & B, were
considered, on the same lines, and with the same modus Operandi, as of
WHRC but 38 Accounts of these ware houses were finally and fully
recovered. giving Branch and Bank a nice business and sizeable return.
Advances against WHR of (C), failed only because the ware house
owner committed a fraud with the Bank and confiscated the stock
pledged to the Bank, and senior functionaries, failed to take timely
decision and there was an inordinate delay in filing FIR for the period in
question (Annexure PR/2) against the ware house owner.
(ii)Out of 82.49 Lacs, Amount Financed against WH.R of B.D. More
ware house, Petitioner Sanctioned 40.13 lacs, upto the date he was
working as Branch Manager in Temporary, Capacity. Remaining 42.36
Lacs were Sanctioned by Shri R.K. Chauhan Permanent Br. Manager.
i.e. Respondent No.4 All these cases were recommended by Petitioner
as field Officer Only.
11.It is submitted that entire loans failed due to reasons, stated above, and
both the Sanctioning authorities and recommending field offices were charge-
sheeted. Shri Chauhan was served charge-sheet for inflicting a loss of 105.77 lacs
(including other loans of C & I segment, sanctioned with the recommendation of
FOSIB. Respondent No.5 was also charge-sheeted and punished. But both
(Respondents No.4 & 5) were inflicted with minor penalty and thus
discriminated with petitioner. In petitioner's case loan sanctioned by him stands
to Rs 40.13 lacs but to make it a bigger amount of proposals recommended by
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3395
11 WP. No. 7096 of 2011
him was included under the phrase Recommended/Sanctioned. It is submitted
that it is important to mention that accepting proposals, preparing them and then
recommending them for sanction to branch manager comes under the clerical
duties of FO. It is not an administrative decision. Financial benefits passes to the
beneficiary only after it is sanctioned by Branch Manager after taking care of
rules and regulations and policy of the Bank. It is further submitted that other two
officials i.e. respondent Nos. 4 & 5 were made to undergo inquiry process the
same lines, but they were punished with soft-sword, with minor penalties,
although the amount of loss incurred in their cases is higher, more than twice i.e.
Rs. 105.77 Lacs, against 40.13 Lacs. This a clear-cut case of discrimination and
bias against petitioner. The other two officials were favoured being in active
service of the Bank at the material time of delivering the punishment orders and
petitioner stood retired well before completion of inquiry and could not get any
sympathetic view, as other officials (Respondents no. 4 & 5) were given.
Following is the position of the post held by official alleged, loss amount as per
their charge-sheets and punishment inflicted on them, in the same circumstances
under the same policies and by the same authority structure.
Name Post Alleged amount of
loss
1Shri R.K. ChouhanBranch Manager105.77 lacs Stoppage of 2
increments for 2 year
2Shri Shailendra KumarFO (SIB and C
& I)
Recommended 23.47
Lacs
Stoppage of 2
increments for 2 year
3Shri A.K. Jain FO Agr & B.M.
For a short
period 15-04-07
to 23-06-07
40.13 Lacs sanctioned
and 18.88 Lacs
recommended
Dismissal from
services after
retirement on
superannuation
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3395
12 WP. No. 7096 of 2011
12.It is submitted that on the same point whether near relatives of W.H. owner
were to be financed or not, comments of Disp. Authority- are appended below:
“Though there was no specific bar for financing to the neat/close
relatives of ware house owner at the time of sanctioning these
loans, but it is clearly visible that ware house owner and his close
relatives were accommodated under the Scheme violating
spirit/purpose of the scheme, which was meant for providing
liquidity to the farmers to enable them to avoid distress sale of their
farm produce at the time of harvest.”
13.Are they not entitled to be saved from distress sale of their farm produce,
simply because of having some relation with the W.H. Owner. Here the "Vision"
of Disp. Authority to see beyond what has been laid down and
circulated/instructed can not be a base for arriving at decisions of Inquiry Officer.
Moreover, these loans were only recommended by the petitioner and were
sanctioned by the Branch Manager, after finding them proper and fit under the
scheme. It is submitted that no adequate reason for disagreement has been given
by Disp. Authority & respondent No.2 for such disagreement and therefore, what
could not be proved on the floor of the inquiry, by the Inquiry officer, has been
held proved by the Disp Authority & Resp. No.2, without justifying his judgment
adequately in terms of Rule No. 68 (3) (ii). This is a big question mark on the
quality of justice delivered by the Management of the Respondent Bank. It is
submitted that Appellate Authority and Respondent No.1 failed to elaborate how
would the officers have been diligent, in the absence of clear policy guidelines
and instructions, and what about the stocks pledged, which was pledged by rest
of the majority of borrowers and confiscated by ware house owner.
14.It is submitted that this allegation finally not found to be proved by the
inquiry officer as well as Disp. Authority. This is only because petitioner did
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3395
13 WP. No. 7096 of 2011
everything what was required of him to do as field officer which means that he
was never negligent towards his duties, in preparing proposals, recommending
them for sanction, and/or pointing out deficiencies, for sanction/disbursement to
higher authorities for initiating, remedial measures.
15.It is submitted that petitioner pointed out the bad motives of the warehouse
owner to Branch Manager and officials of Regional Office sitting at a distance of
22 Kms. from the Branch, who were aware of everything happening at the
Branch. In fact, when the irregularity or symptoms of failure of loan appeared
Regional Manager from Regional Office himself visited the ware house, did
detailed inspection with his team on 21-10-2008, but he failed to initiate any
action to take possession of stock and safeguard the primary security lying in the
hands of ware house owner It was the inordinate delay on the part of Regional
office and Regional Manager, who took months together to permit the filing of
FIR. By that time the total stock pledged was removed by the ware house owner,
which resulted in failure of loan and loss to Bank. It is clearly apparent that
officers of junior level were made scapegoat to protect the inaction of Regional
Manager, who failed to take timely decisions and guide the Branch Officials.
16.It is further submitted that in the catena of judgments of the court of Law
and the Division Bench of Gauhati High Court in case of Girish Chand Sharma
V/s BRPL, affirmed by the Apex Court, as cited in case of workman, Thanai Tea
Estate V Is Management, Thanai Tea Estate (2013 (137) FLR 24) decided on
June 20, 2012 dealing with the collective responsibility in the decision making
process, held that the charge of fraud against the petitioner involved in the said
case was misdirected for the reason that the petitioner alone was not entrusted
with the particular responsibility and that the responsibility was with the team
which includes the Respondents no. 4, 5 and along with the higher Management
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3395
14 WP. No. 7096 of 2011
of the State Bank of India. Petitioner alone could not have been picked up for the
alleged loss and to award the disproportionate punishment of dismissal after his
retirement, discriminating with respondent no. 4 & 5 (Annexure PR/4).
Moreover, the documents received through RTI, in cases of respondents 4 & 5,
and the poor follow up in the high drama case in question would demonstrate that
how far the negative attitude is applied by the respondent Bank with the
petitioner. The SBI has discriminated petitioner with respondents no. 4 & 5
arbitrarily with malice and played the game to demolish petitioner and his family
by denying the pension and other pensionary benefits (Annexures PR/5 to P/13).
The petitioner is also entitled to the interest on the pension and other retiral dues
in view of Apex Court judgment in V.L. Mehrotra followed by this high court in
State of M.P. Vs R.D. Agrawal (Annex. PR/14).
B.Submissions of Respondents :
17.Per contra, learned counsel for respondents submits that the punishment
awarded to petitioner is commensurate with the gravity of misconduct. It cannot
be equated with other persons as their conduct was quite different and their
responsibility was also different. Punishment has been awarded to petitioner
according to his responsibility and the wrong and misconduct committed by him.
Learned counsel for respondents further submitted that petitioner had sanctioned
various loans against the stock in warehouse wherein he had committed certain
mistakes and irregularities, therefore, the proper and detailed charge-sheet was
issued to him and enquiry was also done in accordance with law. Resultantly, he
has been punished and thereafter the appellate authority has also considered the
facts and grounds mentioned by petitioner in his appeal and decided the appeal
on merits. Learned counsel for respondents further submitted that petitioner had
committed negligence thereby causing huge monetary loss amounting to Rs.87
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3395
15 WP. No. 7096 of 2011
lacs to the respondent/Bank for which he was duly charge-sheeted and punished
in accordance with law. Learned counsel for respondents further submitted that
petitioner cannot claim negative equality as the concept of negative equality has
no role to play in the provisions of Article 14 of Constitution of India. He placed
reliance on the order dated 04.11.2024 passed by co-ordinate Bench of this
Court at Principal Seat Jabalpur in the case of Akbar Khan Vs. The State of
Madhya Pradesh And Others [WP. No.32178/2024]. Learned counsel for
respondents further submitted that the ground that other colleagues of petitioner
have been awarded different punishment cannot be tenable as the punishment
awarded to petitioner is proper and commensurate with his misconduct and
responsibility. Learned counsel for respondents further submitted that the
punishment order has been passed after affording due and proper opportunity of
hearing to petitioner and observing principle of natural justice by the
respondent/Bank. Thus, learned counsel for respondents submits that present
petition being bereft of substance is liable to be dismissed on these grounds.
C.Consideration/Discussion :
18.Having heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the record, I
am of the considered view that the petitioner has been able to make out a case for
interference due to the following facts and reasons stated hereinbelow.
(i)Whether respondents can continue departmental enquiry after
retirement of the petitioner:
19.To answer this question, this Court would like to go through Rule 19(3) of
State Bank of India Officers' Service Rules, 1992 first, which for reference and
convenience reads as under:
“19. (3) In case disciplinary proceedings under the relevant rules of
service have been initiated against an officer before he ceases to be in
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3395
16 WP. No. 7096 of 2011
the Bank’s service by the operation of, or by virtue of, any of the said
rules or the provisions of these rules, the disciplinary proceedings may,
at the discretion of the competent authority, be continued and
concluded by the authority by which the proceedings were initiated in
the manner provided for in the said rules as if the officer continues to
be in service, so however, that he shall be deemed to be in service only
for the purpose of the continuance and conclusion of such
proceedings.”
20.As per aforesaid rules, disciplinary proceedings which have been initiated
against an officer before he ceases to be in the Bank's service, the disciplinary
proceedings may, at the discretion of the competent authority, be continued and
concluded as if the officer continues to be in service, so however, that he shall be
deemed to be in service only for the purpose of the continuance and conclusion
of such proceedings. Therefore, this ground of petitioner is not sustainable.
(ii) T he copy of comments on the appeal by the Disciplinary Authority
has not been supplied to the petitioner :
21.From perusal of record, it is seen that in letter dated 04.02.2011 issued by
the Chief Manager (Appeal and Review), addressed to the Assistant General
Manager (Admn.), Disciplinary Proceedings Section, by which Chief General
Manager has forwarded a copy of the appeal (preferred by petitioner against the
dismissal order] dated 31.01.2011 and in Serial No.12, it is mentioned that Chief
Manager has forwarded his comments on the Disciplinary Authority on the point
of appeal in tabular form but the copy of comments on the appeal by the
Disciplinary Authority has not been supplied to the petitioner and the appellate
order is passed on the basis of comments of disciplinary authority and once the
appellate order is based on the disciplinary authority comments then as per the
compliance of natural justice it is necessary to supply the copy of comments to
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3395
17 WP. No. 7096 of 2011
the petitioner and asked the reply on comments from the petitioner for
compliance of principle of natural justice.
(iii)Proper Reasons are required to be recorded, while disagreeing from
the report of Enquiry Officer :
22.The disciplinary authority has issued a show cause notice dated 10.07.2010
disagreeing with the finding of enquiry officer in respect of Allegation No.1(ii)
and petitioner has submitted his detailed reply dated 27.07.2010 in respect of
Allegation No.1(ii) and at the time of issuance of punishment order the reply
submitted by petitioner has not been considered/dealt with.
23.The judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Punjab National
Bank Vs. Kunj Behari Misra reported in AIR 1998 SC 2713 which has been
cited by learned counsel for petitioner specifically lays down that in case an
inquiry report is in favour of the petitioner and the Disciplinary Authority is in
disagreement with the said inquiry report, the proper reasons are required to be
recorded in that context while disagreeing from the report of Enquiry
Officer but from the order of the Disciplinary Authority it is reflected that
no proper reasoning has been assigned while disagreeing with the Enquiry
Report which was in favour of petitioner.
(iv)Recovery of amount of Rs.26,96,101/- has not been shown by the
Bank:
24.The recovery amount in loss-statement mentioned below has been
suppressed by the respondents and this fact has already been mentioned by this
Court in order sheet dated 19.12.2025. Despite respondent/Bank has not
explained why the recovered amount/outstanding as on 28.02.2011 has not been
brought into the knowledge of the court when specific query has been made by
order dated 18.12.2025. As the aforesaid loss statement is available on record of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3395
18 WP. No. 7096 of 2011
the disciplinary authority, therefore, for future purposes copy of aforesaid loss
statement is marked as Annexure C-1 which is reproduced below for ready
reference and convenience:
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3395
19 WP. No. 7096 of 2011
(v)Recovery of amount of Rs.26,96,101/- has not been considered by the
Appellate Authority:
25.As per Annexure A of the charge-sheet, the outstanding amount has been
shown as Rs.87,00,096/- against WHRs issued by the B.D. More Warehouse and
this Court has already recorded in proceedings dated 19.12.2025 and as per the
loss statement Staff Supervisor A.K. Jain as on 28.02.2011, the outstanding
amount shown Rs.87,00,096/- and as per the above chart Rs.26,96,101/- recovery
shown in Annexure C/1 is not mentioned.
26.As per record, the memo of Appellate Authority dated 24.03.2011
approximate loss attributed to the petitioner is shown Rs.87,00,000/- when at the
time of preparing the memo of appellate authority dated 24.03.2011 Annexure C-
1 (Recovered amount of Rs.26,96,101/-) has not been considered by Deputy
General Manager (O & C) NW-1.
27.The petitioner has specifically mentioned in appeal that Bank money will
be fully recovered and petitioner has already been punished with disproportionate
penalty for no loss to be incurred by Bank and also stated that other officers have
already been punished for the similar cause with minor penalty by reduction in
their time scale from 2-5 stages and also stated aforesaid fact in para 3 of appeal
memo in following manner:
“It is pertinent to mention here that the referred alleged allegations are
contributory minor procedural irregularities crept into the Systems
where by other Officials including the then BM Sh R.K. Chauhan &
Shri Shailendra Kumar working during above period at FO(SIB)
Nowgong branch were also proceeded with by the Bank under
"Disciplinary Action" procedure & it has been given to understand
that in their case a lenient view was taken by imposing a minor
penalty in reduction of time scale by 2 to 5 stages And in a similar
case, I have been penalized with a disproportionate major penalty of
'Dismissal from Service’ causing me a monetary loss of Rs. 80/- lacs
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3395
20 WP. No. 7096 of 2011
(Rupees eighty lacs approximately) & compelled to lead a life of
'Stravation' & live with a mental agony & ungraceful life in the
society with my colleagues of SBI, while the above mentioned facts if
considered, favourably by your kind honour merits for reviewing
penalty imposed by "AA" by taking a lenient view for reduction of
penalty in a such manner so that I can get pension for leading a life
without "Stravation" gracefully & peacefully.”
28.As per record, statement of allegations and Article of Charges dated
26.10.2009, Annexure I, II, III and PEx-1, substantial Financial Loss to the Bank
is Rs.87 lacs and as per Annexure A of Charge-sheet dated 26.09.2009 issued
against Shri Shailendra Kumar (respondent No.5) and as per Annexure A,
petitioner (A.K. Jain), Shri Shailendra Kumar (respondent No.5) and R.K.
Chouhan (respondent No.4), all three are responsible for alleged loss of
Rs.1,05,77,300/- shown against advances against WHRs issued by B.D. More
Warehouse. For ready reference Annexure A is marked as Annexure C-2.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3395
21 WP. No. 7096 of 2011
(vi).Allegations are procedural mistake:
29.A perusal of the allegations, levelled against petitioner in the charge-sheet,
clearly goes to show that the allegations levelled in the charge-sheet and the
imputation of allegations are nothing but a procedural mistake crept in while
sanctioning loans/advances against WHRs receipts. The question is as to whether
such an irregularity in the matter of following the procedure to sanction
loans/advances against WHRs receipts can be termed as misconduct. Once this is
the factual scenario then merely because the petitioner failed to follow the
guidelines, it cannot be said that the petitioner has committed misconduct in the
matter. At best action of the petitioner may fall in the category of carelessness or
negligence in the matter of sanctioning loans/advances against WHRs, therefore
as per my view allegations levelled even do not amount to misconduct for which
action can be taken. Therefore also, probably, the disciplinary authority has
imposed minor punishment against respondents No.4 and 5.
(vii)Alleged allegations are not breach of any provision of State Bank of
India Officers’ Service Rules, 1992; ill-motive is not there:
30.Now, this Court would like to understand what is misconduct. Rule 66 of
State Bank of India Officers’ Service Rules, 1992 defines “Misconduct” which
goes as under:
“66. A breach of any of the provisions of these rules shall be
deemed to constitute misconduct punishable under rule 67.
Note: For the purpose of rules 51, 52, 56, 59 and 62, “family” shall
mean: -
(i) In the case of a male officer, his wife, whether residing with him
or not, but does not include legally separated wife and in the case of a
female officer, her husband, whether residing with her or not, but
does not include a legally separated husband;
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3395
22 WP. No. 7096 of 2011
(ii) Children or step-children of the officer, whether residing with the
officer or not, and wholly dependent on such officer but does not
include a child or step-child of whose custody the officer has been
deprived of by or under any law; and
(iii) any other person related by blood or marriage, to the officer or to
his spouse and wholly dependent on such officer.”
31.Nowhere it is found by any of the authorities i.e. Enquiry Officer,
Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellate Authority that the petitioner had
breached any of the provisions of State Bank of India Officers’ Service Rules,
1992 in sanctioning loans/advances against WHRs receipts. Also it is nowhere
found by any of the authorities i.e. Enquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority as
well as Appellate Authority that the petitioner had ill-motive in sanctioning
loans/advances against WHRs receipts. Thus, the act of petitioner cannot be
termed as misconduct as per the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in
the case of Inspector Prem Chand Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and others
reported in (2007) 4 SCC 566, para 12 of which is quoted below for ready
reference and convenience:
12.It is not in dispute that a disciplinary proceeding was initiated
against the appellant in terms of the provisions of the Delhi Police
(Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980. It was, therefore, necessary for
the disciplinary authority to arrive at a finding of fact that the
appellant was guilty of an unlawful behaviour in relation to discharge
of his duties in service, which was wilful in character. No such
finding was arrived at. An error of judgment, as noticed hereinbefore,
per se is not a misconduct. A negligence simpliciter also would not be
a misconduct. In Union of India v. J. Ahmed [(1979) 2 SCC 286 :
1979 SCC (L&S) 157] whereupon Mr Sharan himself has placed
reliance, this Court held so stating: (SCC pp. 292-93, para 11)
“11. Code of conduct as set out in the Conduct Rules clearly
indicates the conduct expected of a member of the service. It
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3395
23 WP. No. 7096 of 2011
would follow that conduct which is blameworthy for the
government servant in the context of Conduct Rules would be
misconduct. If a servant conducts himself in a way inconsistent
with due and faithful discharge of his duty in service, it is
misconduct (see Pearce v. Foster [(1886) 17 QBD 536, 542 :
(1886-90) All ER Rep Ext 1752] ). A disregard of an essential
condition of the contract of service may constitute misconduct
[see Laws v. London Chronicle (Indicator Newspapers [(1959) 1
WLR 698] )]. This view was adopted in Shardaprasad
Onkarprasad Tiwari v. Divisional Supdt., Central Rly., Nagpur
Division, Nagpur [(1959) 61 Bom LR 1596] and Satubha K.
Vaghela v. Moosa Raza [10 Guj LR 23] . The High Court has
noted the definition of misconduct in Stroud's Judicial
Dictionary which runs as under:
‘Misconduct means, misconduct arising from ill motive; acts
of negligence, errors of judgment, or innocent mistake, do not
constitute such misconduct’.”
Emphasis supplied
32.The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of S.D. Bind Vs.
Union of India & Others reported in 2015(1) MPLJ 574 has held as under:
“15. That apart, another aspect of the matter warrants consideration.
The irregularities which is found against the petitioner is only
nonfollowing of certain procedure in the matter of awarding contract.
The question is as to whether such an irregularity in the matter of
following the procedure can be termed as a misconduct. The Supreme
Court has considered the aforesaid aspect in the case of Union of
India v. J. Ahmed (AIR 1979 SC 1022) which has been followed
again by the Supreme Court in the case of Inspector Prem Chand v.
Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi and others [(2007) 4 SCC
1022] ; wherein it has been held by the Supreme Court that merely
lack of efficiency, failure to attain the highest standard of
administrative ability or negligent or careless wat of dealing with a
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3395
24 WP. No. 7096 of 2011
matter on one isolated may not constituted a misconduct for which
punishment can be imposed.
16. In the present case apart from the fact that the Division Bench has
made the observations as reproduced herein above and interfered with
the imposition of cost, it found that there was certain discrepancy in
the guidelines laid down and, therefore, in paragraph 9 fresh
guidelines for future action was issued. Once this is the factual
scenario then merely because the petitioner failed to follow the
guidelines for once, it cannot be said that the petitioner has committed
misconduct in the matter. At best action of the petitioner may fall in
the category of careless or negligence in the matter of dealing with the
case once an isolated occasion and if the principles laid down by the
Supreme Court as indicated in the case of J. Ahmed (supra) is applied,
we are of the considered view that allegations levelled even do not
amount to misconduct for which action can be taken.”
33.Are they not entitled to be saved from distress sale of their farm produce,
simply because of having some relation with the W.H. Owner. Here the "Vision"
of Disp. Authority to see beyond what has been laid down and
circulated/instructed can not be a base for arriving at decisions of Inquiry Officer.
Moreover, these loans were only recommended by the petitioner and were
sanctioned by the Branch Manager, after finding them proper and fit under the
scheme. It appears that no adequate reason for disagreement has been given by
Disp. Authority & respondent No.2 for such disagreement and therefore, what
could not be proved on the floor of the inquiry, by the Inquiry officer, has been
held proved by the Disp Authority & Resp. No.2, without justifying his judgment
adequately in terms of Rule No. 68 (3) (ii). This is a big question mark on the
quality of justice delivered by the Management of the Respondent Bank. Further,
it appears that Appellate Authority and Respondent No.1 failed to elaborate how
would the officers have been diligent, in the absence of clear policy guidelines
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3395
25 WP. No. 7096 of 2011
and instructions, and what about the stocks pledged, which was pledged by rest
of the majority of borrowers and confiscated by ware house owner.
34.This allegation finally could not appears to have been found to be proved
by the inquiry officer as well as Disp. Authority. This is only because petitioner
did everything what was required of him to do as field officer which means that
he was never negligent towards his duties, in preparing proposals, recommending
them for sanction, and/or pointing out deficiencies, for sanction/disbursement to
higher authorities for initiating, remedial measures.
35.Moreso, petitioner pointed out the bad motives of the warehouse owner to
Branch Manager and officials of Regional Office sitting at a distance of 22 Kms.
from the Branch, who were aware of everything happening at the Branch. In fact,
when the irregularity or symptoms of failure of loan appeared Regional Manager
from Regional Office himself visited the ware house, did detailed inspection with
his team on 21-10-2008, but he failed to initiate any action to take possession of
stock and safeguard the primary security lying in the hands of ware house owner
It was the inordinate delay on the part of Regional office and Regional Manager,
who took months together to permit the filing of FIR. By that time the total stock
pledged was removed by the ware house owner, which resulted in failure of loan
and loss to Bank. It is clearly apparent that officers of junior level were made
scapegoat to protect the inaction of Regional Manager, who failed to take timely
decisions and guide the Branch Officials.
(viii)Charges upon petitioner and co-delinquents are same:
36.By charge-sheet dated 26.10.2009, two charges have been framed against
petitioner in following manner :-
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3395
26 WP. No. 7096 of 2011
Charge No.1
You have committed several lapses in recommending/sanctioning (as
Officiating BM) Demand Loans granted against Ware House Receipts
(WHRs) issued by B.D. More Ware House violating the terms of
sanction vide LHO letter No.AGR-2/C-7/28 dated 15.05.2007, thus
granting loans to non-eligible applicants, accommodated the
borrowers/ware house owner beyond discretionary powers and
beyond stipulations as per sanction letter.
Charge No.2
You have committed several lapses in conduct and follow up of loans
without having meaningful pre-sanction and post-disbursement
inspection which have resulted substantial financial loss to the Bank.
Your above acts have exposed the Bank a loss in excess of Rs.87.00
lacs.
37.By charge-sheet dated 26.10.2009, two charges have been framed against
Shailendra Kumar (Respondent No.5) in following manner:
Charge No.1
You have committed several lapses in recommending Demand Loans
against Ware House Receipts (WHRs) violating instructions of the
competent authority thus granting loans to non-eligible applicants. It
also appears that the ware house owner/borrowers were
accommodated by granting loan to them.
Charge No.2
You have committed several lapses in conduct and follow up of loans
without having meaningful pre-sanction and post-disbursement
inspection which have resulted substantial financial loss to the Bank.
Your above acts have exposed the Bank a loss in excess of Rs. 18.00
lacs.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3395
27 WP. No. 7096 of 2011
38.By charge-sheet dated 26.09.2009, two charges have been framed against
R.K. Chouhan (Respondent No.4-Deleted) in following manner:
Charge No.1
You have committed several lapses in sanction of Demand Loans
against Ware House Receipts (WHRs) issued by B.D. More Ware
House violating the terms of sanction vide LHO letter No.AGR-2/C-
7/28 dated 15.05.2007, thus granting loans to non-eligible applicants,
accommodated the borrowers/ware house owner beyond discretionary
powers and beyond stipulations as per sanction letter.
Charge No.2
You have committed several lapses in conduct and follow up of loans
without having meaningful inspection of the ware house which have
resulted substantial financial loss to the Bank.
Your above acts have exposed the Bank a loss in excess of Rs. 105.00
lacs.
39.It is needless to state that the scope of judicial review in disciplinary
proceedings is well settled and the Hon’ble Apex Court has repeatedly
emphasized that illegality, irregularity and proportionality of the punishment
imposed are the only grounds for judicial intervention. If it has been made out
that the conduction of the proceedings suffer from either of the aforementioned
deficiencies, then judicial intervention is certainly warranted.
(ix)Parity amongst co-delinquents :
40.From perusal of record, true it is that financing from Banks comprises two
stages. In the first stage, field officer receives the application related documents,
ensures authenticity of them, prepares the proposal and recommends it to the
sanctioning authority. Branch Manager, in this case, respondent No. 4 (since
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3395
28 WP. No. 7096 of 2011
dead) sanctions it only after ensuring the genuineness of the demand, fulfillment
of various schemes of the Bank, before sanctioning the proposals. It is needles to
mention that sanctioning authority is under no obligation to sanction each and
every recommended proposal, if found erratic or not confirming to the policies
and rules and regulations, circulated by the Bank from time to time. He can
refuse to sanction it. It is clearly mentioned in the circular that loan of Rs.10 Lacs
can be sanctioned per borrower within overall limit of 76.00 lacs, upper limit
against WHR of B.D. More Warehouse. It is apparent from the decision that
petitioner is singled out, framed and finally discriminated for the reasons
appended below:
(i)There were 3 warehouses, whose WHR were considered for
financing to beneficiaries, namely:
(A)Maa Parwati Warehouse – 38.32 Lacs
(B)Sri Balaji Warehouse – 53.60 Lacs and
(C)B.D. More Warehouse – 82.49 Lacs
Out of these three, financing against WHIR of A & B, were
considered, on the same lines, and with the same modus Operandi, as of
WHRC but 38 Accounts of these ware houses were finally and fully
recovered giving Branch and Bank a nice business and sizeable return.
Advances against WHR of (C), failed only because the ware house
owner committed a fraud with the Bank and confiscated the stock
pledged to the Bank, and senior functionaries, failed to take timely
decision and there was an inordinate delay in filing FIR for the period in
question (Annexure PR/2) against the ware house owner.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3395
29 WP. No. 7096 of 2011
(ii)Out of 82.49 Lacs, amount financed against WH.R of B.D. More
ware house, petitioner sanctioned 40.13 lacs, upto the date he was
working as Branch Manager in Temporary, Capacity. Remaining 42.36
Lacs were Sanctioned by Shri R.K. Chauhan Permanent Br. Manager.
i.e. Respondent No.4. All these cases were recommended by Petitioner
as field Officer Only.
41.Entire loans failed, it appears, due to reasons mentioned above and both
the sanctioning authorities and recommending field offices were charge-sheeted.
Shri Chauhan was served charge-sheet for inflicting a loss of 105.77 lacs
(including other loans of C & I segment, sanctioned with the recommendation of
FOSIB. Respondent No.5 was also charge-sheeted and punished. But both
(Respondents No.4 & 5) were inflicted with minor penalty and thus
discriminated with petitioner. In petitioner's case loan sanctioned by him stands
to Rs 40.13 lacs but to make it a bigger amount of proposals recommended by
him was included under the phrase Recommended/Sanctioned. It is significant to
mention that accepting proposals, preparing them and then recommending them
for sanction to branch manager comes under the clerical duties of FO. It is not an
administrative decision. Financial benefits passes to the beneficiary only after it
is sanctioned by Branch Manager after taking care of rules and regulations and
policy of the Bank. Other two officials i.e. respondent Nos. 4 & 5 were made to
undergo inquiry process the same lines, but they were punished with soft-sword,
with minor penalties, although the amount of loss incurred in their cases is
higher, more than twice i.e. Rs. 105.77 Lacs, against 40.13 Lacs. This shows that
it is a clear-cut case of discrimination and bias against petitioner. The other two
officials were favoured being in active service of the Bank at the material time of
delivering the punishment orders and petitioner stood retired well before
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3395
30 WP. No. 7096 of 2011
completion of inquiry and could not get any sympathetic view, as other officials
(Respondents no. 4 & 5) were given. Following is the position of the post held by
official alleged, loss amount as per their charge-sheets and punishment inflicted
on them, in the same circumstances under the same policies and by the same
authority structure.
Name Post Alleged amount of
loss
1Shri R.K. ChouhanBranch Manager105.77 lacs Stoppage of 2
increments for 2 year
2Shri Shailendra KumarFO (SIB and C
& I)
Recommended 23.47
Lacs
Stoppage of 2
increments for 2 year
3Shri A.K. Jain FO Agr & B.M.
For a short
period 15-04-07
to 23-06-07
40.13 Lacs sanctioned
and 18.88 Lacs
recommended
Dismissal from
services after
retirement on
superannuation
42.The Apex Court in the case of Rajendra Yadav Vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh and others reported in (2013) 3 SCC 73 has held as under:
9. The doctrine of equality applies to all who are equally placed;
even among persons who are found guilty. The persons who have
been found guilty can also claim equality of treatment, if they can
establish discrimination while imposing punishment when all of them
are involved in the same incident. Parity among co-delinquents has
also to be maintained when punishment is being imposed.
Punishment should not be disproportionate while comparing the
involvement of co-delinquents who are parties to the same
transaction or incident. The disciplinary authority cannot impose
punishment which is disproportionate i.e. lesser punishment for
serious offences and stringent punishment for lesser offences.
10. The principle stated above is seen applied in a few judgments of
this Court. The earliest one is DG of Police v. G. Dasayan [(1998) 2
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3395
31 WP. No. 7096 of 2011
SCC 407 : 1998 SCC (L&S) 557] wherein one Dasayan, a police
constable, along with two other constables and one Head Constable
were charged for the same acts of misconduct. The disciplinary
authority exonerated two other constables, but imposed the
punishment of dismissal from service on Dasayan and that of
compulsory retirement on the Head Constable. This Court, in order
to meet the ends of justice, substituted the order of compulsory
retirement in place of the order of dismissal from service on
Dasayan, applying the principle of parity in punishment among co-
delinquents. This Court held that it may, otherwise, violate Article 14
of the Constitution of India.
11. In Shaileshkumar Harshadbhai Shah case [(2006) 6 SCC 548 :
2006 SCC (L&S) 1486] the workman was dismissed from service for
proved misconduct. However, few other workmen, against whom
there were identical allegations, were allowed to avail of the benefit
of voluntary retirement scheme. In such circumstances, this Court
directed that the workman also be treated on the same footing and be
given the benefit of voluntary retirement from service from the month
on which the others were given the benefit.
12. We are of the view that the principle laid down in the
abovementioned judgments would also apply to the facts of the
present case. We have already indicated that the action of the
disciplinary authority imposing a comparatively lighter punishment
on the co-delinquent Arjun Pathak and at the same time, harsher
punishment on the appellant cannot be permitted in law, since they
were all involved in the same incident. Consequently, we are inclined
to allow the appeal by setting aside the punishment of dismissal from
service imposed on the appellant and order that he be reinstated in
service forthwith. The appellant is, therefore, to be reinstated from
the date on which Arjun Pathak was reinstated and be given all
consequential benefits as were given to Arjun Pathak. Ordered
accordingly. However, there will be no order as to costs.
43.It is apposite to take note of the test laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court
for the purpose of deciding similarity of charges and proportionality of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3395
32 WP. No. 7096 of 2011
punishment. In the case of Administrator, Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar
Haveli Vs. Gulabhia M. Lad (2010) 5 SCC 775 it was laid down as under:-
“14. The legal position is fairly well settled that while exercising
power of judicial review, the High Court or a Tribunal cannot
interfere with the discretion exercised by the Disciplinary
Authority, and/or on appeal the Appellate Authority with regard to
the imposition of punishment unless such discretion suffers
from illegality or material procedural irregularity or that
would shock the conscience of the Court/Tribunal. The
exercise of discretion in imposition of punishment by the
Disciplinary Authority or Appellate Authority is dependent on
host of factors such as gravity of misconduct, past conduct, the
nature of duties assigned to the delinquent, responsibility of the
position that the delinquent holds, previous penalty, if any, and the
discipline required to be maintained in the department or
establishment he works. Ordinarily the Court or a Tribunal would
not substitute its opinion on reappraisal of facts.
15. In a matter of imposition of punishment where joint
disciplinary enquiry is held against more than one delinquent, the
same or similarity of charges is not decisive but many factors as
noticed above may be vital in decision making. A single
distinguishing feature in the nature of duties or degree of
responsibility may make difference insofar as award of
punishment is concerned. To avoid multiplicity of proceedings
and overlapping adducing of evidence, a joint enquiry may be
conducted against all the delinquent officers but imposition of
different punishment on proved charges may not be impermissible
if the responsibilities and duties of the co-delinquents differ or
where distinguishing features exist. In such a case, there would
not be any question of selective or invidious discrimination.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
44.In Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Vs. Ashok Kumar Arora reported in
(1997) 3 SCC 72, the similar view was taken and the Apex Court came to hold
that if a delinquent employee is the main actor, he cannot claim parity in the
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3395
33 WP. No. 7096 of 2011
matter of imposition of punishment with other co-delinquents whose roles were
distinct and different.
45.The said principles were further summarized in Lucknow Kshetriya
Gramin Bank Vs. Rajendra Singh reported in (2013) 12 SCC 372, the relevant
paras of which are as under:-
“19.3 Limited judicial review is available to interfere with the
punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, only in cases
where such penalty is found to be shocking to the conscience of
the court.
19.5. The only exception to the principle stated in para 19.4
above, would be in those cases where the codelinquent is awarded
lesser punishment by the disciplinary authority even when the
charges of misconduct were identical or the co-delinquent was
foisted with more serious charges. This would be on the doctrine
of equality when it is found that the employee concerned and the
co-delinquent are equally placed. However, there has to be a
complete parity between the two, not only in respect of nature of
charge but subsequent conduct as well after the service of charge-
sheet in the two cases. If the co-delinquent accepts the charges,
indicating remorse with unqualified apology, lesser punishment to
him would be justifiable.”
(emphasis supplied)
46.It cannot be doubted that the imposition of punishment depends upon
nature and duties of each delinquent employee, role allegedly played by them,
gravity of charges, loss caused, past record etc. If there is similarity of allegations
which was established in the enquiry, the punishment should be similar and
commensurate to the misconduct. If the charges established against delinquent
employees are similar and some of them are inflicted with severe punishment of
dismissal from service whereas others were put to a comparatively advantageous
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3395
34 WP. No. 7096 of 2011
position, it will be a fit case for interference by the Court in exercise of power
under Article 226 of the Constitution.
47.With regard to parity in the matter of punishment with co-delinquents, the
Hon’ble Apex Court in Pawan Kumar Agarwala Vs. General Manager-II and
Appointing Authority, State Bank of India and others reported in (2015) 15
SCC 184, has held as under:
“17. The charge-sheet was issued on 28-10-2004 against the
appellant making 6 allegations against him and it is undisputed fact
that list of witnesses and the copies of the documents were not
furnished to the appellant. Further, the disciplinary authority has
reversed the findings on Charges 3 and 5 without giving an
opportunity to the appellant to show cause in the matter, and
thereafter, the order of removal was passed by the appointing
authority on the advice of the CVO vide his opinion dated 1-2-2006
and further it is brought on record that similarly placed person,
namely, Mr Pradeep Kumar Das, the Manager of Hallydayganj
Branch, who has loaned the loan to one Mr Tapan Kumar Sangma, in
his case they have imposed lesser punishment of withholding on
increment thereby making discrimination in differently treating the
appellant herein, which is violation of Article 14 of the Constitution
of India.”
48.In the catena of judgments of the court of Law and the Division Bench of
Gauhati High Court in case of Girish Chand Sharma V/s BRPL, affirmed by the
Apex Court, as cited in case of workman, Thanai Tea Estate V Is Management,
Thanai Tea Estate (2013 (137) FLR 24) decided on June 20, 2012 dealing with
the collective responsibility in the decision making process, held that the charge
of fraud against petitioner involved in the said case was misdirected for the
reason that petitioner alone was not entrusted with the particular responsibility
and that the responsibility was with the team which includes the Respondents no.
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3395
35 WP. No. 7096 of 2011
4, 5 and along with the higher Management of the State Bank of India. Petitioner
alone could not have been picked up for the alleged loss and to award the
disproportionate punishment of dismissal after his retirement, discriminating with
respondent no. 4 & 5 (Annexure PR/4). Moreover, the documents received
through RTI, in cases of respondents 4 & 5, and the poor follow up in the high
drama case in question would demonstrate that how far the negative attitude is
applied by the respondent Bank with the petitioner. The SBI has discriminated
petitioner with respondents no. 4 & 5 arbitrarily with malice and played the game
to demolish petitioner and his family by denying the pension and other
pensionary benefits (Annexures PR/5 to P/13). The petitioner is also entitled to
the interest on the pension and other retiral dues in view of Apex Court judgment
in V.L. Mehrotra followed by this high court in State of M.P. Vs R.D. Agrawal.
49.As per the charge-sheets issued to the petitioner as well as respondents
No.4 and 5, they altogether have played a significant role in granting advances
against WHRs issued by B.D. More Warehouse and Disciplinary Authority has
given different treatment in imposing punishments as petitioner was squarely
dismissed from service and respondents No.4 and 5 have been awarded minor
punishment. As such, it is apparent that the respondent authorities have not
maintained parity while imposing punishments on all the co-delinquents.
(x)Shockingly Disproportionate (Judicial Interference) :-
50.The petitioner enjoyed unblemished service record, except for the present
case. Having carefully gone through the enquiry report as it is not a case of
misappropriation or siphoning of funds on the part of the petitioner, the
punishment awarded to petitioner is shockingly disproportionate to the guilt of
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3395
36 WP. No. 7096 of 2011
petitioner and it deserves to be set aside as discriminatory attitude has been
adopted by the Disciplinary Authority as well as by the Appellate Authority.
51.This Court is conscious of the fact that the High Court, while exercising its
jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, while dealing with disciplinary
proceedings, should restrict itself to the Wednesbury Test and not interfere in the
orders of a disciplinary authority, which is quasi-judicial in nature, unless the
punishment imposed is grossly disproportionate to the charges levelled. In the
present case, the disparity in imposition of punishments would require judicial
review.
52.The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi Vs Union of
India reported in (1995) 6 SCC 749 has held as under:
“12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of
the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is
meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to
ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily
correct in the eye of the court. When an inquiry is conducted on
charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is
concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent
officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether
the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority
entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and
authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding
must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of
Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein,
apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that
evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary
authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the
charge. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not
act as appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence and to arrive at
its own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal
may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the
delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3395
37 WP. No. 7096 of 2011
justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of
inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the
disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or
finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the
Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and
mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case.
13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal
is presented, the appellate authority has coextensive power to re-
appreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. In a disciplinary
inquiry, the strict proof of legal evidence and findings on that
evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of
evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the
Court/Tribunal. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel [(1964) 4 SCR 718 :
AIR 1964 SC 364 : (1964) 1 LLJ 38] this Court held at p. 728 that if
the conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence reached by the
disciplinary authority, is perverse or suffers from patent error on the
face of the record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari
could be issued.”
(xi)Unreasoned & Non-speaking (Independent Findings & Reasons have
not been recorded) :
53.The impugned orders, by any standard of measure, do not appear to be
Speaking Orders. The disciplinary authority seems to have mechanically
reproduced the findings of the enquiry officer. Such an indifferent attitude taken
by the disciplinary authority frustrates the cause of justice. Disciplinary authority
ought to appreciate the evidence examined by the Enquiring Authority and look
into the aspect of whether the charges made out against the delinquent officer
could be reasonably inferred on the basis of such evidence. Additionally, it must
render its independent findings and record the reasons for either considering or
rejecting the reply to show cause notice. Disciplinary Authority is not expected to
arrive at a conclusion hastily, without going into the petitioner’s reply, or without
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3395
38 WP. No. 7096 of 2011
going into the detailed reasons and rationale behind the grounds taken by the
petitioner in his reply.
54.The impugned orders, by any standard of measure, do not appear to be
Speaking Orders. The appellate authority seems to have mechanically reproduced
the findings of the disciplinary authority. Such an indifferent attitude taken by the
appellate authority frustrates the cause of justice. When an appeal is preferred, an
appellate authority ought to appreciate the evidence examined by the
Disciplinary Authority and look into the aspect of whether the charges made out
against the delinquent officer could be reasonably inferred on the basis of such
evidence. Additionally, it must render its independent findings and record the
reasons for either considering or rejecting the appeal. Appellate proceedings are
not to be conducted hastily, without going into the petitioner’s /appellant’s
contentions, or without going into the detailed reasons and rationale behind the
rejection of such appeal.
D.Conclusion:
55.Taking into consideration entire facts and circumstances of the case and
after giving anxious meditation, this Court considers such behaviour to be
unbecoming of an Officer holding the post of a Field Officer/Bank Manager.
However, when the act of all the three i.e. petitioner and respondents No.4 and 5,
as per the above charge-sheets, is one and the same i.e. issuance of advances
against the WHRs, this Court is unable to understand the preferential attitude
shown by the respondent authorities to the co-delinquents Bank Manager/Field
Officers by imposing lesser punishments on them on one hand and against
petitioner major one on the other. There is a merit in the contention of the learned
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3395
39 WP. No. 7096 of 2011
counsel for the petitioner that with respect to the imposing of punishments, there
ought to have been parity in dealing with co-delinquents.
56.Furthermore, as such, the respondent bank has failed to satisfy this Court
regarding parity of punishments imposed on A.K. Jain (petitioner), R.K. Chouhan
(respondent No.4 – deleted) and Shailendra Kumar (respondent No.5). Further,
the appeal proceedings appear to be a namesake exercise undertaken by the
appellate authority, as no reasoning or rationale has been given for rejecting the
petitioner’s appeal, in the impugned order dated 06.06.2011.
57.The punishment imposed on the other Branch Managers/Field Officers i.e.
respondents No.4 and 5 (co-delinquents) which is one and the same is reproduced
below:
“Reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay by two stages for
a period of two years with further direction that the officer will not
earn increments to pay during the period of such reduction and on
expiry of such period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing
the future increments of his pay in terms of Rule No.67(f) of State
Bank of India Officers’ Service Rules, 1992”.
58.While the said co-delinquents were let off with a mere reduction of time
scale of pay, the petitioner was imposed the major penalty of “Dismissal from
Service” under Rule No. 67(j) of the State Bank of India Officers’ Service Rules,
1992”. It is distinctly obvious that the petitioner was meted out such a stringent
treatment. This Court is of the firm view that such a prejudicial attitude by the
Disciplinary Authority impairs the cause of justice.
59.It is significant to mention that out of 82.49 Lacs, amount financed against
WHR of B.D. More ware house, petitioner sanctioned 40.13 lacs, upto the date
he was working as Branch Manager in Temporary Capacity. Remaining 42.36
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3395
40 WP. No. 7096 of 2011
Lacs were sanctioned by Shri R.K. Chauhan Permanent Br. Manager i.e.
Respondent No.4. All these cases were recommended by petitioner as Field
Officer Only. Therefore, the attitude of the disciplinary authority in treating the
petitioner with a different lens shows bias, and is therefore violative of the
principle of natural justice.
60.While considering the proportionality of the punishment, distinction lies
between the procedural irregularities constituting misconduct from the acts of
misappropriation of finances, causing loss to the institution, etc. and these factors
have not been considered by respondents at the time of imposition of punishment
and at the time of considering the appeal.
61.In the charge-sheet there is no ground that petitioner is having tendency to
disregard the laid down systems and procedures and without giving any
opportunity of being heard on the allegations the appeal was rejected by the
Appellate Authority. On the same charges once the criminal court has acquitted
the petitioner finding him not guilty, the disciplinary authority as well as
appellate authority must have reconsidered this aspect also. Other two officials
i.e. respondent Nos. 4 & 5 were made to undergo inquiry process the same lines,
but they were punished with soft-sword, with minor penalties, although the
amount of loss incurred in their cases is higher, more than twice i.e. Rs. 105.77
Lacs, against 40.13 Lacs. This a clear-cut case of discrimination and bias against
petitioner.
62.On the same point whether near relatives of W.H. owner were to be
financed or not, comments of Disp. Authority- are appended below:
“Though there was no specific bar for financing to the near/close
relatives of ware house owner at the time of sanctioning these
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3395
41 WP. No. 7096 of 2011
loans, but it is clearly visible that ware house owner and his close
relatives were accommodated under the Scheme violating
spirit/purpose of the scheme, which was meant for providing
liquidity to the farmers to enable them to avoid distress sale of their
farm produce at the time of harvest.”
63.Moreover, these loans were only recommended by the petitioner and were
sanctioned by the Branch Manager, after finding them proper and fit under the
scheme. No adequate reasons for disagreement have been given by Disciplinary
Authority & respondent No.2 and for such disagreement appellate Authority and
Respondent No.1 failed to elaborate how would the officers have been diligent,
in the absence of clear policy guidelines and instructions, and what about the
stocks pledged, which was pledged by rest of the majority of borrowers and
confiscated by ware house owner.
64.It is surprising enough that the respondent/Bank has not denied the
facts and grounds as have been asserted by petitioner in his rejoinder, by
filing reply/counter affidavit.
65.In view of the foregoing discussion, it is apparent that the punishment
imposed on the petitioner is highly disproportionate and disparate with the co-
delinquents. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that it is just and
proper to direct the petitioner to make a fresh representation before the
respondent authorities to impose any lesser punishment other than that of
“dismissal”, “removal from service” and “Compulsory Retirement” in terms of
the State Bank of India Officers’ Service Rules, 1992.
66.Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and disposed of in the following
manner:
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3395
42 WP. No. 7096 of 2011
(i) The impugned order passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated
06.12.2010 (Annexure P/6) and appeal rejection order dated 06.06.2011
(Annexure P/8) are hereby quashed;
(ii) Petitioner is directed to make a fresh representation before the
disciplinary authority within a period of four (04) weeks from the date of
receipt of a certified copy of this order who shall be free for imposing
any lesser punishment other than that of “dismissal” or “removal from
service” or “Compulsory Retirement” in terms of the State Bank of India
Officers’ Service Rules, 1992;
(iii)In turn, the disciplinary authority is directed, while considering
such representation, to bear in mind the punishment imposed upon co-
delinquents; consider the fact that petitioner has rendered valuable
services for long 39 years and there is no major allegation against him in
his entire service career; consider the fact that as per Annexure C-1 & C-
2 already mentioned above recovery of Rs.26,96,101/- has already been
made against alleged outstanding amount of Rs.87 lacs; consider the fact
that in para 68 of judgment dated 29.11.2022 passed by I Additional
Sessions Judge, Nowgong, District Chhatarpur in ST No.100084/2011,
amount of Rs.13,69,000/- and Rs.31,56,000/- has been recovered after
auctioning Gayatri Dal Mill and B.D. More Ware house respectively;
consider the fact that on the same charges the criminal court has already
acquitted petitioner by judgment dated 29.11.2022 passed by I Additional
Sessions Judge, Nowgong, District Chhatarpur in ST No.100084/2011;
and also consider whether the alleged charges levelled against petitioner
come under the purview of misconduct as mentioned in preceding paras
as enquiry officer has not recorded mens rea / ill-motive of petitioner
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:3395
43 WP. No. 7096 of 2011
which breached any of the provisions of State Bank of India Officers'
Service Rules, 1992 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law,
and extend all consequential/retiral benefits to petitioner including
pension, gratuity, arrears, retiral benefits etc., within a period of eight
(08) weeks thereafter, however, if not complied within a period of 08
weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, the
petitioner would be entitled to get interest @ 6% per annum from the
date of entitlement till actual payment is made; and
(iv)The General Manager, Vigilance Department, SBI or
appropriate/competent authority is directed to enquire into the matter as
to why recovery has been mentioned in Annexure C-1 as Rs.26,96,101/-
and amount of Rs.13,69,000/- and Rs.31,56,000/- recovered after
auctioning Gayatri Dal Mill and B.D. More Ware house respectively has
not been shown as recovered amount in Annexure R-3 filed along with
IA. No.15572/2025 and take an appropriate action against person
responsible after giving them reasonable opportunity of hearing in
accordance with law and also bear in mind the proceeding of this Court
in the instant case dated 19.12.2025.
67.The Original Record made available in compliance of order dated
21.02.2025 be returned to the concerned Authority of the Bank.
(Anand Singh Bahrawat)
Judge
pd
Legal Notes
Add a Note....