In Brief
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to set aside the dismissal of a bank manager for misappropriation and related charges. The manager was dismissed on the basis of unproven allegations involving fictitious loan beneficiaries, missing documents, and a confessional statement signed by other employees (not the manager). The Court held that while strict rules of evidence do not apply in departmental proceedings, findings must rest on some evidence. Here, key witnesses were not independently verified, the confession of others could not bind the manager, and the charges lacked credible evidentiary support. The Court ruled that the manager's past minor misconduct alone could not sustain dismissal and ordered his reinstatement with full back benefits and pension consideration.", "cited_cases">[{"raw_citation":"UP State Road Transport Corporation v. Har Narain Singh 1998 (9) SCC 220", "case_name":"UP State Road Transport Corporation v. Har Narain Singh", "cited_year":"1998", "paragraph":"6", "treatment":"referred"}, {"raw_citation":"State Bank of India v. Ram Dinkar Punde 2006 (7) SCC 212", "case_name":"State Bank of India v. Ram Dinkar Punde", "cited_year":"2006", "paragraph":"6", "treatment":"referred"}, {"raw_citation":"Government of A.P & Ors. v. Mohd. Narsulla Khan 2006 (2) SCC 373", "case_name":"Government of A.P & Ors. v. Mohd. Narsulla Khan", "cited_year":"2006", "paragraph":"6", "treatment":"referred"}, {"raw_citation":"Union of India v. H.C. Goel (1964) 4 SCR 718", "case_name":"Union of India v. H.C. Goel", "cited_year":"1964", "paragraph":"16", "treatment":"followed", "treatment_by":"this_court", "treatment_quote":"where a public servant is punished for misconduct after a departmental enquiry is conducted, a clear case where interference under Article 226 of the Constitution is warranted is when there is no evidence to establish the official's guilt."}, {"raw_citation":"B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India (1995) 6 SCC 749", "case_name":"B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India", "cited_year":"1995", "paragraph":"17", "treatment":"relied", "treatment_by":"this_court", "treatment_quote":"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."}, {"raw_citation":"T.N.C.S. Corpn. Ltd. v. K. Meerabai, (2006) 2 SCC 255", "case_name":"T.N.C.S. Corpn. Ltd. v. K. Meerabai", "cited_year":"2006", "paragraph":"17", "treatment":"referred"}, {"raw_citation":"Bank of India v. Degala Suryanarayana (1999) 5 SCC 762", "case_name":"Bank of India v. Degala Suryanarayana", "cited_year":"1999", "paragraph":"18", "treatment":"referred"}, {"raw_citation":"Punjab & Sind Bank v. Daya Singh (2010) 11 SCC 233", "case_name":"Punjab & Sind Bank v. Daya Singh", "cited_year":"2010", "paragraph":"18", "treatment":"referred"}, {"raw_citation":"Moni Shankar v. Union of India (2008) 3 SCC 484", "case_name":"Moni Shankar v. Union of India", "cited_year":"2008", "paragraph":"18", "treatment":"referred"}, {"raw_citation":"State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaya (2011) 4 SCC 584", "case_name":"State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaya", "cited_year":"2011", "paragraph":"18", "treatment":"referred"}, {"raw_citation":"Sher Bahadur v. Union of India & Ors (2002) 7 SCC 141", "case_name":"Sher Bahadur v. Union of India & Ors", "cited_year":"2002", "paragraph":"14", "treatment":"referred"}, {"raw_citation":"Narinder Mohan Arya v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (2006) 4 SCC 713", "case_name":"Narinder Mohan Arya v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.", "cited_year":"2006", "paragraph":"14", "treatment":"referred"}, {"raw_citation":"Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank (2009) 2 SCC 570", "case_name":"Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank", "cited_year":"2009", "paragraph":"23", "treatment":"referred"}, {"raw_citation":"J.D. Jain v. Management of State Bank of India 1982 (1) SCC 143", "case_name":"J.D. Jain v. Management of State Bank of India", "cited_year":"1982", "paragraph":"23", "treatment":"distinguished", "treatment_by":"this_court", "treatment_quote":"In the present case, however, the confessional statement was not by the respondent. Those who authored the confession, did not depose in the enquiry. Furthermore, no witness who heard the authors of the confession, deposed to it. At best then, that document bound the authors, not third parties, like the respondent."}, {"raw_citation":"State Bank of India v. Hemant Kumar 2011 (2) SCC 22", "case_name":"State Bank of India v. Hemant Kumar", "cited_year":"2011", "paragraph":"23", "treatment":"distinguished", "treatment_by":"this_court", "treatment_quote":"In the present case, however, the confessional statement was not by the respondent. Those who authored the confession, did not depose in the enquiry. Furthermore, no witness who heard the authors of the confession, deposed to it. At best then, that document bound the authors, not third parties, like the respondent."}]
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.