Judgment:
ORDER
Goda Raghuram, J.
1. The petitioner, a Junior Management Grade-I Officer of the SBI has been dismissed from service pursuant to disciplinary proceedings by the orders of the first respondent dated August 29, 1983. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected by the Appellate Authority and the rejection of the appeal was intimated to him by orders dated July 12, 1984. The petitioner preferred a review against the confirmation of orders of dismissal. The review was also rejected by the orders dated February 10, 1987 communicated in the order dated March 5, 1987. He is thus before this Court assailing the imposition of the penalty of dismissal.
2. The petitioner was working as Branch Manager since 1978 in the bank on his promotions (sic) from the lower cadres. During 1980, he was working as Branch Manager in Gudur branch. He was placed under suspension on April 21, 1980 pending initiation of departmental proceedings. A charge sheet dated September 9, 1981 was communicated to him setting out charges (a) to (g) along with statements of allegations and imputations in support of the various charges alleged. In response to the charge memo, the petitioner sought statements given by various individuals containing complaints/allegations made against him as also the documents mentioned in support of the allegations for the purpose of enabling him to submit his written statement of defence to the charge memo. This was by the letter dated September 26, 1981 of the petitioner. Inresponse thereto, the respondent bank by the communication dated October 15, 1981 informed the petitioner, inter alia that should the petitioner desire to examine any of the bank employees and peruse any of the bank records relevant to the charges levelled against him, he should give suitable notice to the inquiring authority.
3. After due conduct of the inquiry, the disciplinary authority, as already stated, imposed on the petitioner a penalty of dismissal. The inquiring authority found the petitioner guilty of charges (a), (d) (ii), (d) (iii), (e), (f)(i), (f)(ii), f (iii) and g (ii) and exonerated him of the other charges.
4. The petitioner assails the imposition of punishment on him on various grounds namely (a) that the allegations against him are false, baseless and motivated, (b) that he was denied opportunity to effectively cross-examine the management witnesses (c) that relevant questions put by him to the management witnesses relating to the conduct or credibility of witnesses were disallowed (d) that the statement recorded by the investigating officer is not supplied to him (e) that there is no legally acceptable evidence before the Enquiry Officer to hold him guilty of charges and that the evidence in support of charges is vague and without corroboration and (f) that the penalty imposed is disproportionate to the charges proved.
5. Charge (a) levelled against the petitioner is to the effect 'You had taken illegal gratification from the agriculturists for sanctioning loans, in some cases directly from the borrowers and in other cases through middlemen'. This charge was split up into two aspects at the enquiry, firstly, regarding the receipt of illegal gratification directly for sanctioning loans to the specified agriculturists and secondly with regard to receipt of illegal gratification for sanctioning loans from the specified agriculturists through middleman.
6. In respect of the first part of charge (a), the allegation against the petitioner is that he had taken illegal gratification directly from Sarvasri R. Vema Reddy, B.C Buchaiah andAbdul Waheed. The findings of the inquiring authority in respect of this part of charge (a) are as under:
'Charge (a) i:
4. It is alleged that the CSO had taken illegal gratification directly for sanctioning loans to the following agriculturists:
S.No.Name of the borrowerAmount of loan
(Rs.)Illegal grati-fication taken by CSO
(Rs.)
1.Sri R. Verma Reddy1,3001252.Sri B.C. Buchaiah500503.Sri G. Abdul Waheed3,517200
5. P. Ex.12 indicates sanctions and disbursal of Rs. 1200/- as crop loan to Sri R. Vema Reddy on September 4, 1979. P. Ex.4 is a loan application from Sri B.C. Buchaiah under DIR scheme for Rs. 500/- which was sanctioned on April 18, 1979. P. Ex. 28 is a transaction sheet which indicates the disbursal of Rs. 500/- on the same day to the borrower. P. Ex. 27, P. Ex. 55 to 59 show the disbursal of an aggregate amount of Rs. 3,517/- to Sri G.A. Waheed by the CSO as a poultry loan.
6. P.Ex.33, P.Ex.34 and P.Ex.36 are the statements furnished by the abovesaid borrowers. A reading of P.Ex.33, 34 and 36 indicates that Sarvasri P. Vema Reddy, P. C. Buchaiah, G.A. Waheed paid a bribe of Rs. 125/-, Rs. 50/- and Rs. 200/- to the CSO.
7. The prosecution has examined Sarvasri R. Vema Reddy and B. Chinna Buchaiah who stated of having given the amounts as Rs. 150/- and Rs. 50/- as an illegal gratification to the CSO for sanction of the loan amounts to them. It is true that there is slight variation in the amount mentioned by PW2 in his deposition. This variation as such does not materially vitiate the charge in question. PW12 who was an investigating official had confirmed P.Ex. 36 which was furnished to him by Sri G.A. Waheed who mentioned to the witness that he had paid Rs. 200/- to the CSO.
8. Having regard to the above and considering the evidence let in both documentary and oral, I consider that the charge that CSO had taken illegal gratification from the above named borrowers is substantially established'.
7. In respect of second aspect of charge (a), the petitioner is alleged to have received illegal gratification through Sri Narasimhulu and Sesha Reddy from 10 specified borrowers. The inquiring authority set out ,the following analysis of evidence and his conclusions in respect of this part of charge are:
'10. P.Ex.33 is a statement of Sri R. Vema Reddy who stated that he had paid a bribe amount of Rs. 275/- to the CSO through Sri R. Sesha Reddy.P.Ex.37 is a statement furnished by Sri Narasimhulu who stated having paid an amount of Rs. 300/- to the CSO on behalf of his group as consideration for having sanctioned loans to his group members. P. Ex. 38 is a joint statement furnished by Sarvasri K. Somanna, Harijana Somanna, Harijana Hanumanthu and N. Naganna. These borrowers have indicated having paid an aggregate amount of Rs. 150/- each to Seshi Reddy for passing on these amounts to the CSO who had sanctioned them loans under agricultural segment.
In P.Ex.39 Sri Kamal Sahib stated having paid Rs. 75/- to Sri Seshi Reddy, Sarpanch to be given to the Branch Manager Sri Refeeq Ahmed, the CSO for getting the crop loan of Rs. 1,500/- sanctioned during August, 1987. Sri U Sankara Reddy in his statement P.Ex.40 stated that he had borrowed Rs. 2,000/- in the name of his son, Ramakrishna Reddy and Rs. 3,000/- on two occasions in his name. It is also reported in Exhibit that an aggregate amount of Rs. 350/- was paid in three installments of Rs. 100/-, Rs. 150/- and Rs. 100.- to Sri Seshi Reddy for eventual transfer of the amount to the CSO. It was also confirmed to Sri Sankara Reddy by Seshi Reddy that the above amounts were paid to the CSO. P.Ex.41 is a joint statement from Sarvasri M. Sunki Reddy and V. Veeraiah who submitted in exhibit of having paid an amount of Rs. 100/- andRs. 60/- to Sri Seshi Reddy to hand over them to the CSO for sanction of crop loans of Rs. 2000/- and Rs. 1200/- respectively. The loans were then sanctioned to them, P.Ex.35 is a statement from Sri R, Seshi Reddy, Sarpanch, Munagala village which indicates that he acted as a mediator by virtue of his position as Sarpanch of the village and arranged sanction of crop loans to his villagers by paying bribe to the CSO Rs. 50/- for every loan of Rs. 1000/-. The Sarpanch had arranged for sanction of crop loans to about 40 ryots to the extent of about Rs. 40,000/-. The villagers were also renewed twice the crop loans they had taken, Sri Seshi Reddy had collected and given a sum of Rs. 6,000/- to the CSO by way of bribe. The CSO deliberately turned down the request of the Sarpanch and refused to sanction renewal of the loans unless the bribe amount is paid to him at the rate that was given when original loans were sanctioned. The poor farmers who had no alternative had to bribe the CSO through their Sarpanch at Rs. 50/-, for Rs. 1000/- and take renewal of the loans. Manifestly, the CSO took undue advantage of the poor farmers' need and exploited the situation to gain pecuniary benefit solely for himself without even sparing the Sarpanch who stated having been won over by the CSO to bribe Rs. 350/- for sanction of crop loan of Rs. 4000/- in the name of his wife.
11. The prosecution had introduced the following witnesses to substantiate the charge.
S. No.Name of the WitnessesSarvarsriPWAuthor of statementAmount of bribe given bySri R. Seshi Reddy to the CSO
1.M. Sunki ReddyPW1P.Ex.41Rs.200/-2.R. Vema ReddyPW2P.Ex.33Rs.250/-3.S. NarasimhuluPW3P.Ex.37Rs.300/-4.U. Sankara ReddyPW4P.Ex.40Rs.350/-5.K. Kamal SahebPW8P.Ex.39Rs.75/-6.H. HanumanthuPW9P.Ex.38Rs.100/-7.V. VeeraiahPW10P.Ex.41Rs. 607-8.K. SomannaPW11P.Ex.38Rs.100/-
12. All the above named witnesses have deposed in no 'uncertain terms haying paid the above amount as bribe to their village Sarpanch Sri R. Seshi Reddy with a request to arrange for sanction of the crop loans to them by giving the bribe amount demanded by the CSO. In his statement P. Ex. 35 Sri R. Seshi Reddy had confirmed having paid the amount so collected from his villagers to the CSO who had sanctioned the loans subsequently. All the prosecution witnesses had confirmed having been sanctioned with the crop loans after payment of the bribe to the CSO by Sri Seshi Reddy. The witnesses have also confirmed of having given the statements mentioned above.
13. The defence contention that witnesses are unable to depose the date on which they bribed and that there are variations in the amounts stated by them and that given in their statements does not in any way disprove the charge. Those discrepancies pointed out by the defence will no way reduce the gravity of the charge. These, arguments of the Employee's Representative are, therefore, rather frivolous and, I do not take cognizance of these discussions. Further, the non-introduction of Sri R. Seshi Reddy author of P. Ex. 35 does not also weaken the seriousness of the charge as prosecution witnesses have testified that Sri Seshi Reddy paid the amounts to CSO who thereafter sanctioned the loans to the villagers. This position has bee,n corroborated by PW12 who had investigated into the malpractices resorted to by the CSO.
14. Thus, the charged officer by scant regard to the established service rules by which he is governed had caused considerable damage to the image of the bank. From the overwhelming documentary evidence brought forward by the prosecution coupled with the oral evidence of as many as nine witnesses the charge is proved and I hold Sri Shaik Rafeeq Ahrned guilty of the whole charge (a)'.
8. The record discloses that the petitioner has, in the application seeking review of the appellate order, raised the self-same grounds as are urged herein. The petitioner specifically asserted in his review application that he was deprived of fair opportunity to defend himself by the refusal/failure of the inquiring authority in producing Abdul Waheed, Kesamma and Maheswara Reddy on his behalf. He stated that had he been allowed to examine the aforesaid witnesses, he would have demonstrated before the inquiring authority the irrelevancy of the testimony of other witnesses. In the review application, the petitioner also complained that certain questions put by the defence representative had been disallowed by the inquiring authority arbitrarily. He also complained that the discrepancy in the amounts said to have been paid to him by Venia Reddy and B.C. Buchaiah as between the amounts stated to have been paid while giving a statement before the investigating officer in the enquiry proper, would tend to believe the veracity of the very allegation of having paid a bribe to the petitioner. The Reviewing Committee by the orders dated February 10, 1987 communicated by the letter dated March 5, 1987 elaborately dealt with the contentions of the petitioner. The Reviewing Committee held as under:
(a) That Sri Abdul Waheed was not cited as a defence witness and as such the question of permitting the petitioner to examine him at the enquiry does not arise.
(b) That the rejection of the petitioner's request to examine Maheswara Reddy was not improper since Maheswara Reddy's name nowhere figures as a middleman in any connection with the second aspect of charge (a) and as such Maheswara Reddy could not have stated that none of the witnesses gave money to him for being passed on to the petitioner. Non-calling of Mabeswara Reddy as a defence witness, did not prejudice the case of the petitioner, is the finding by the Reviewing Authority.
(c) That the discrepancy in the averment relating to the quantum of loan availed by Sri Vema Reddy is of no consequence as the slight discrepancy is the result of efflux of time between the preliminary enquiry and the enquiry proper. But that as it may, this minor inconsistency does not by itself alter the position whereby the charge of accepting illegal gratification by the petitioner had been established at the enquiry. Sri Waheed whose statement was relied upon by the management ought to have been produced at the enquiry thereby affording an opportunity to the defence to cross-examine him. However, having regard to, the evidence of Vema Reddy and Buchaiah the charge against the petitioner is substantially proved namely of receiving illegal gratification directly from the borrowers.
(d) That careful analysis of the record of the case discloses that adequate evidence both oral and documentary has been brought on record at the enquiry to show that the petitioner had received illegal gratification directly or through middleman in consideration of loans sanctioned to the various borrowers of Gudur branch of the Bank.
9. The analysis of the inquiring authority on two aspects of charge (a) which has been extracted above clearly shows that there is not merely some but substantial evidence to support the conclusions of the inquiring authority that the petitioner is guilty of the said charge.
10. The analysis contained in the enquiry report in respect of other charges (d)(ii), (d)(iii), (e), (f)(i), (f)(ii), (f)(iii) and (g)(ii), in respect of which charges also the petitioner is found guilty, the reasoning is seen to be rational and not liable to be interfered with in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution. Though these charges are relatively less grave in nature as compared to charge (a), it is seen that there is clear evidence in support of each of these charges. In the circumstances the conclusions of the inquiring authority that these charges are established cannot be faulted. A detailed analysis of the inquiring authority's findings in respect of these other charges' is not made herein as the penalty inflicted on the petitioner namely dismissal from service would be valid in view of the guilt of the petitioner established in respects charge (a) which is a very serious charge of receipt of illegal gratification by the petitioner for snowing official favours.
11. The parameters of the judicial review of disciplinary proceedings are too well settled to require an exhaustive and expansive analysis. However, the broad outlines of the parameters as delineated in the decisions may be noticed.
12. In Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. Ashok Kumar Arora, : AIR1997SC1030 the Supreme Court had occasion to review the law on the subject and reiterated the well settled position by stating that the jurisdiction of the High Court in cases of departmental inquiry is very limited. Intervention is warranted only where it is found that the domestic enquiry is vitiated because of non-observance of principles of natural justice, denial of reasonable opportunity; that the findings are based on no evidence, or that the punishment is totally disproportionate to the proven misconduct of an employee, ruled the Supreme Court. The High Court is not sitting in appeal over the decision of the departmental authorities and judicial review is not over the decision as such but over the decision making process.
13. In Union Bank of India v. Vishwanadhan, 1998 (4) SCC 350, the Supreme Court pointed out that the banking business requires absolute devotion, diligence and utmost integrity by every bank employee in particular the officers. Absence of such characteristics in an officer result in erosion of the confidence of the public and the depositors.
14. The departmental proceedings are not liable to be tested on the basis of strict rules of evidence. In domestic inquiries a finding based even on a hearsay evidence would not per se be invalid provided such evidence has a reasonable nexus with the matter and such testimony is credible to a prudent mind - vide State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh AIR 1997 SC 1512; J.D. Jain v. Management of SBI, : (1982)ILLJ54SC .
15. Even statement of witnesses recorded in the absence of the charged officer, for instance in the preliminary enquiry, could be relied upon provided the charged officer is supplied with copies of such statements and if he so desires the makers of those statements are produced for cross-examination - vide State of Mysore v. Shivabasappa Shivappa Makapur, : (1964)ILLJ24SC .
16. Even in the realm of the application of the principles of natural justice, recent judicial dicta have provided a conceptual content to the doctrine that these principles are flexible. The essential logic and justification of these principles have been succinctly stated by Justice KRISHNA IYER in Chairman, Board of Mining Examination v. Ramji, : [1977]2SCR904 in the following words.
'Natural justice is not unruly horse, not lurking land-mine, nor a judicial cure-all. If fairness is shown by the decision maker to the man proceeded against, the form, features and the fundamentals of such essentially processual propriety being conditioned by the facts and circumstances of each situation, no breach of natural justice can be complained of. Unnatural expansion of natural justice, without reference to the administrative reality and other factors of a given case, can be exasperating. We can neither be finical or fanatical but should be flexible yet firm in this jurisdiction'.
17. The principle has also developed and is now well established that a mere finding of violation of principles of natural justice would not result in invalidation without the real prejudice suffered on acqount thereof having been pleaded and demonstrated - vide K.L. Tripathi v. State Bank of India : (1984)ILLJ2SC . M.C. Mehta v. Union of India, : [1999]3SCR1173 : and the recent decision Aligarh Muslim University v. Mansoor Ali Khan, : AIR2000SC2783 .
18. In the light of the above principles and on application of them, this Court is of the considered view that the charge of the petitioner having taken illegal gratification directly for sanctioning loans to the agriculturists specified in the charge- sheet has been validly found proved on the basis of credible and substantial evidence. Similarly the charge that the official has received illegal gratification through middlemen from borrowers specified in the charge-sheet has also been validly established in the enquiry. The finding on the charge (a) above is alone sufficient to uphold the conclusion of the disciplinary authority that the extreme penalty of dismissal should be imposed on the petitioner. The disciplinary proceedings and the consequent penalty are thus found to be impeccable.
19. Within the parameters of judicial scrutiny under Article 226 of the Constitution I find no error of discretion, irrationality, violation of principles of natural justice or any procedural infirmity in the disciplinary proceedings. The penalty imposed is commensurate with the guilt and the misconduct duly proved.
20. There are no circumstances warranting interference and grant of relief in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.