# AVINASH SADASHIV BHOSALE (D) THR. LRS v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS

- **Citation:** [2012] 9 S.C.R. 86
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2012-09-25
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 7005 of 2012
- **Bench:** Surinder Singh Nijjar, H.L. Gokhale
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/avinash-sadashiv-bhosale-d-thr-lrs-v-union-of-india-ors-28566
- **Pages:** 39

## Headnote

Service Law - Dismissal - On grounds of misconduct -
C . Appellant, Bank Manager, alleged to have been involved in
fraudulent transactions - Prosecuted ulss. 120B, 420, 467,
468, 471 ;;ind 201 /PC alongwith three account holders -
However, subsequently appellant and the other co-accused
acquitted of all the charges by the criminal court -
o Simultaneous to the criminal proceedings, respondent bank
had initiated departmental proceedings against the appellant
which led to his dismissal from service - Order of dismissal
in challenge - Plea of appellant that the departmental
proceedings conducted against him were vitiated as he had
E been acquitted by the criminal court and continuation of
departmental proceedings after the appellant was acquitted
in the criminal trial was in violation of the principle underlying
Article 20(2) of the Constitution - Held: Departmental
proceedings can go on simultaneously to the criminal trial,
F except where both the proceedings are based on the same
set of facts and the evidence in both the proceedings is
common -
The instant case did not fall within the said
exception as the departmental proceedings herein and the
criminal case were not grounded upon the same set of facts
and evidence - The basic charge against the appellant in the
G departmental proceedings was that he failed to discharge his
duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence
to ensure and protect the interest of the Bank and acted in a
manner unbecoming of a Bank Officer - Said charge had
H
86
AVINASH SADASHIV BHOSALE (D) THR. LRS. v.
87
UNION OF INDIA
nothing to do with any criminal liability attaching to such
A
conduct - Failure of the prosecution in producing necessary
evidence before the criminal cowt cannot have any adverse
impact on the evidentiary value of the material produced by
the Bank before the Inquiry Officer in the departmental
proceedings - Before the Inquiry Officer, the Bank had placed
B
on record all the relevant documents which clearly establish
that appellant had exceeded his discretionary powers in
purchasing cheques and issuing demand drafts to show
undue favour to three construction companies - Appellant
failed to maintain the high standards of integrity as required c
of the Bank officials and acted in violation of the Service
Rules -
Order of dismissal also not vitiated by nonapplication of mind - There was no breach of the rule of
natural justice - Order of dismissal accordingly not interfered
with - State Bank of India Officers Service Rules, 1992 -
0
rr.50(4), 67(j) and 68(2)(iii) - Penal Code, 1860 - ss.120B,
420, 467, 468, 471 and 201.
Service Law - Departmental proceedings - If can be
conducted simultaneously to criminal trial - Legal position
discussed -
Held: Departmental proceedings can be
E
conducted simultaneously to criminal trial - The only valid
ground for claiming that the disciplinary proceedings may be
stayed would be to ensure that the defence of the employee
in the criminal case may not be prejudiced - But even such
grounds would be available only in cases involving complex
F
questions of facts and law - Such defence ought not to be
permitted to unnecessarily delay the departmental
proceedings - Interest of the delinquent officer as well as the
emplc;iyer clearly lies in a prompt conclusion of the
disciplinary proceedings - Departmental proceedings can go
G
on simultaneously to the criminal trial, except where both the
proceedings are based on the same set of facts and the
evidence in both the proceedings is common.
Service Law - Conduct - Bank officials - Standard of
H
88
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 9 S.C.R.
A
integrity required of them - Held: Bank officials act as trustees
of funds deposited by the public with the Bank - They have
an obligation to earn the trust and confidence of not only the
account holders but also the general public - High standards
of integrity is required of the Bank officials, particularly the
B cashiers, accountants, auditors and the Management

## Text

_Characters 0–39,919 of 74,828. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39919 for what follows._

[2012] 9 S.C.R. 86
A
AVINASH SADASHIV BHOSALE (D) THR. LRS.
v.
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 7005 of 2012)
B
SEPTEMBER 25, 2012
[SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.]
Service Law - Dismissal - On grounds of misconduct -
C . Appellant, Bank Manager, alleged to have been involved in
fraudulent transactions - Prosecuted ulss. 120B, 420, 467,
468, 471 ;;ind 201 /PC alongwith three account holders -
However, subsequently appellant and the other co-accused
acquitted of all the charges by the criminal court -
o Simultaneous to the criminal proceedings, respondent bank
had initiated departmental proceedings against the appellant
which led to his dismissal from service - Order of dismissal
in challenge - Plea of appellant that the departmental
proceedings conducted against him were vitiated as he had
E been acquitted by the criminal court and continuation of
departmental proceedings after the appellant was acquitted
in the criminal trial was in violation of the principle underlying
Article 20(2) of the Constitution - Held: Departmental
proceedings can go on simultaneously to the criminal trial,
F except where both the proceedings are based on the same
set of facts and the evidence in both the proceedings is
common -
The instant case did not fall within the said
exception as the departmental proceedings herein and the
criminal case were not grounded upon the same set of facts
and evidence - The basic charge against the appellant in the
G departmental proceedings was that he failed to discharge his
duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence
to ensure and protect the interest of the Bank and acted in a
manner unbecoming of a Bank Officer - Said charge had
H
86
AVINASH SADASHIV BHOSALE (D) THR. LRS. v.
87
UNION OF INDIA
nothing to do with any criminal liability attaching to such
A
conduct - Failure of the prosecution in producing necessary
evidence before the criminal cowt cannot have any adverse
impact on the evidentiary value of the material produced by
the Bank before the Inquiry Officer in the departmental
proceedings - Before the Inquiry Officer, the Bank had placed
B
on record all the relevant documents which clearly establish
that appellant had exceeded his discretionary powers in
purchasing cheques and issuing demand drafts to show
undue favour to three construction companies - Appellant
failed to maintain the high standards of integrity as required c
of the Bank officials and acted in violation of the Service
Rules -
Order of dismissal also not vitiated by nonapplication of mind - There was no breach of the rule of
natural justice - Order of dismissal accordingly not interfered
with - State Bank of India Officers Service Rules, 1992 -
0
rr.50(4), 67(j) and 68(2)(iii) - Penal Code, 1860 - ss.120B,
420, 467, 468, 471 and 201.
Service Law - Departmental proceedings - If can be
conducted simultaneously to criminal trial - Legal position
discussed -
Held: Departmental proceedings can be
E
conducted simultaneously to criminal trial - The only valid
ground for claiming that the disciplinary proceedings may be
stayed would be to ensure that the defence of the employee
in the criminal case may not be prejudiced - But even such
grounds would be available only in cases involving complex
F
questions of facts and law - Such defence ought not to be
permitted to unnecessarily delay the departmental
proceedings - Interest of the delinquent officer as well as the
emplc;iyer clearly lies in a prompt conclusion of the
disciplinary proceedings - Departmental proceedings can go
G
on simultaneously to the criminal trial, except where both the
proceedings are based on the same set of facts and the
evidence in both the proceedings is common.
Service Law - Conduct - Bank officials - Standard of
H
88
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 9 S.C.R.
A
integrity required of them - Held: Bank officials act as trustees
of funds deposited by the public with the Bank - They have
an obligation to earn the trust and confidence of not only the
account holders but also the general public - High standards
of integrity is required of the Bank officials, particularly the
B cashiers, accountants, auditors and the Management at all
levels - They must be above suspicion.
The appellant, a Branch Manager in the State Bank
of India, was alleged to have been involved in fraudulent
C transactions to the tune of Rs. 12 crores. After completion
of investigation by the police, the appellant was
prosecuted for having committed offences punishable
under Sections 120B, 420, 467, 468, 471 and 201 IPC
alongwith three account holders. However, subsequently
the appellant and the other co-accused were acquitted of
D all the charges.
Simultaneous to the criminal proceedings, the
respondent bank had initiated departmental proceedings
against the appellant. He was served a charge sheet
E containing articles of charge and statement of imputation
of misconduct in terms of Rule 68(2)(iii) of the State Bank
of India Officers Service Rules, 1992. It was alleged that
the appellant failed to discharge his duty with utmost
integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence to ensure and
F
protect the interest of the Bank and acted in a manner in
violation of Rule 50(4) of the 1992 Rules. The Inquiry
Officer submitted report, whereby it was held that all the
charges
were
proved
against the
appellant.
Consequently, the Disciplinary Authority dismissed the
G appellant from service in terms of Rule 67(j) of the 1992
Rules. Against the order of dismissal, the appellant
preferred a statutor}t appeal which was dismissed. The
appellant thereafter filed writ petition in the High Court.
The writ petition was dismissed in limine and therefore
the instant appeal.
H
AVINASH SADASHIV BHOSALE (0) THR. LRS. v.
89
UNION OF INDIA
It was inter a/ia contended before this Court on
A
behalf of the appellant that the disciplinary proceedings
conducted against him were vitiated as he had been
acquitted by the Criminal Court; and that continuation of
departmental proceedings after the appellant was
acquitted in the criminal trial was in violation of the
B
principle underlying Article 20(2) of the Constitution.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1. Departmental proceedings can be
conducted simultaneously to the criminal trial. There is
C
no legal bar for both proceedings to go on
simultaneously. The only valid ground for claiming that
the disciplinary proceedings may be stayed would be to
ensure that the defence of the employee in the criminal
case may not be prejudiced. But even such grounds
D
would be available only in cases involving complex
questions of facts and law. Such defence ought not to
be permitted to unnecessarily delay the departmental
proceedings. The interest of the delinquent officer as well
as the employer clearly lies in a prompt conclusion of the
E
disciplinary proceedings. Departmental proceedings can
go on simultaneously to the criminal trial, except where
both the proceedings are based on the same set of facts
and the evidence in both the proceedings is c.ommon.
[Para 44] [121-E-H; 122-A-C]
F
1.2. The departmental proceedings herein and the
criminal case were not grounded upon the same set of
facts and evidence. It cannot be said that because the
appellant had been prosecuted, the departmental
proceedings
could
not have
been
continued
simultaneously. The charges against the appellant in the
criminal trial related to the commission of criminal
offences under Sections 120(8), 420, 467, 468, 471 and
201 of IPC. The proof of criminal charges depended upon
prosecution producing proof beyond reasonable doubt
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
90
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 9 S.C.R.
relating to the culpability of the appellant alongwith other
persons. In the departmental proceedings, the basic
charge was that appellant whilst posted as a Branch
Manager, failed to discharge his duties with utmost
integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence to ensure and
protect the interest of the Bank and acted in a manner
unbecoming of a Bank Officer. The aforesaid charge
clearly related to the manner in which the appellant
performed the duties as the Manager of the Branch of
the Bank. It had nothing to do with any criminal liability
attaching to such conduct. Bank officials act as trustees
of funds deposited by the public with the Bank. They
have an obligation to earn the trust and confidence of
not only the account holders but also the general public.
The standard of integrity required of the Bank officials,
particularly the cashiers, accountants, auditors and the
Management at all levels, is like the Caesar's wife, they
must be above suspicion. The appellant failed to maintain
such high standards of integrity. He therefore, acted in
violation of Rule 50(4) of the 1992 Rules. [Para 45] [122D-H; 123-A]
1.3. The conduct of the criminal trial was in the
hands of the prosecuting agency. Having registered the
First Information Report, the Bank had little or no role to
play, apart from rendering assistance to the prosecuting
agencies. The failure of the prosecution in producing the
necessary evidence before the trial court cannot have
any adverse impact on the evidentiary value of the
material produced by the Bank before the Inquiry Officer
in the departmental proceedings. Before the Inquiry
Officer, the Bank had placed on the record all the
G relevant documents which clearly establish that the
appellant had exceeded his discretionary powers in
purchasing the cheques and issuing demand drafts to
show undue favour to the three construction companies
named in the charge sheet. In view of the above, the
H findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer cannot be said
AVINASH SADASHIV BHOSALE (D) THR. LRS. v.
91
UNION OF INDIA
to be based on no evidence. It is a settled proposition
A
of law that the findings of Inquiry Officer cannot be
nullified so long as there is some relevant evidence in
support of the conclusions recorded by the Inquiry
Officer. In the present case, all the relevant documents
were produced in the Inquiry to establish the charges
B
levelled against the appellant. It is a matter of record that
the appellant did not doubt the authenticity of the
documents produced by the Bank. He merely stated that
the signature on the documents were not his. The
aforesaid statement of the appellant was nullified by C
PW7, who appeared as a witness for the Bank. He clearly
stated that he recognized the signature of the appellant
as he had been working as his subordinate. In the
circumstances of the case, the appellant cannot take any
advantage of the findings of innocence recorded by the
criminal court. The 'clean chit' given by the Magistrate
D
was influenced by the failure of the prosecution to lead
the necessary evidence. No advantage of the same can
be taken by the appellant in the departmental
proceedings. [Paras 46, 47] [123-B-H; 124-A-B]
E
1.4. Also it cannot be said that the order by the
Disciplinary Authority was vitiated by non-application of
mind. The Disciplinary Authority was alive to all the
submissions made by the appellant and had taken into
consideration all the relevant material and only then
F
concluded that the charges have been duly proved
against the appellant. Furthermore, it is a matter of record
that the appellant was duly supplied a copy of the Inquiry
Report and he had submitted detailed objections to the
same. These objections were placed before the G
Disciplinary Authority together with the Inquiry Report.
Therefore, the appellant cannot possibly claim that there
has been a breach of rule of natural justice. Similarly, the
Appellate Authority has also given cogent reasons in
support of its conclusion. This is also apparent from the
H
92
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 9 S.C.R.
A
extract of the order of the Appellate Authority. [Paras 48,
49) [124-A-F]
G.M. Tank vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. (2006) 5 SCC 446:
2006 (2) Suppl. SCR 253; Union of India & Ors. vs. Naman
B
Singh Shekhawat (2008) 4 SCC 1: 2008 (5) SCR 137 and
Pritam Singh & Anr. vs. State of Punjab AIR 1956 SC 415 -
distinguished.
Ajit Kumar Nag vs. General Manager (PJ), Indian Oil
Corpn. Ltd., Haldia & Ors. (2005) 7 SCC 764: 2005 (3) Suppl.
C
SCR 314 and Depot Manager, A.P. State Road Transport
Corporation vs. Mohd. Yousuf Miya & Ors. (1997) 2 SCC 699:
1996 (8) Suppl. SCR 941 - held applicable.
Divisional Controller, Karnataka State Road Transport
D
Corporation vs. M. G. Vittal Rao. (2012) 1 SCC 442: 2011 (14)
SCR 1089 - relied on.
·
Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank & Ors.
(2009) 2 SCC 570: 2008 (17) SCR 1476; Calcutta Dock
Labour Board & Ors. vs. Jaffar Imam 1965 3 SCR 453;
E
Subhash Chand vs. State of Rajasthan (2002) 1 SCC 702:
2001 (4) Suppl. SCR 163; Omar Salay Mohd Sait vs.
Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras AIR 1959 SC 1238;
Union of India vs. H.C. Goel AIR 1964 SC 364: 1964 SCR
718; Narinder Mohan Arya vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd.
F
& Ors. (2006) 4 SCC 713: 2006 (3) SCR 932; Capt. M. Paul
Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr. (1999) 3 SCC 679:
1999 (2) SCR 257 and Sawai Singh vs. State of Rajasthan
(1986) 3 SCC 454: 1986 (2) SCR 957 - referred to.
G
H
Case Law Reference:
2008 (17) SCR 1476
referred to
1965 3 SCR 453
referred to
2001 (4) Suppl. SCR 163
referred to
Para 29,34
Para 29, 35
Para 29, 36
AVINASH SADASHIV BHOSALE (D) THR. LRS. v.
93
UNION OF INDIA
AIR 1959 SC 1238
referred to
Para 29, 37
1964 SCR 718
referred to
Para 29
2006 (3) SCR 932
referred to
Para 29
2006 (2) Suppl. SCR 253
distinguished Para 29,39
~008 (5) SCR 137
distinguished Para 29
1999 (2) SCR 257
referred to
Para 29
1986 (2) SCR 957
referred to
Para 29
AIR 1956 SC 415
distinguished Para 29
2011 (14) SCR 1089
relied on
Para 30
2006 (3) SCR 932
referred to
Para 38
2005 (3) Suppl. SCR 314
held applicable Para 39
1996 (8) Suppl. SCR 941
held applicable Para 39
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
7005 of 2012.
From the Judgment & Order dated 30.03.2005 of the High
Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 8606 of
2004.
Sushil Kumar Jain, Dr. M. Shah Alam Khan, Sarad Kumar
Singhania for the Appellant.
Rakesh Dwivedi, Sanjay Kapur, Ashmi Mohan, Priyanka
Das, Anmol Chandan for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J. 1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the
judgment and order dated 30th March, 2005 passed in the Writ
A
B
c
D
.E
F
G
H
94
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 9 S.C.R.
A Petition No. 8606 of 2004 by the High Court of Bombay, by
which the writ petition against the order of dismissal of the
petitioner from service dated 19th July, 2003 and the order
passed by the Appellate Authority on 27th July, 2004 affirming
the said order of the dismissal was dismissed in limine.
B
3. Before adverting to the facts leading to the filing of the
present appeal, we must notice that the petitioner Mr. Avinash
Sadashiv Bhosale died during the pendency of this appeal. His
legal heirs have been brought on record, in his place. However,
C for the sake of convenience, he shall be referred to as Mr.
Bhosale or as the appellant whichever is appropriate.
4. It appears that Mr. Bhosale joined the services of
respondent No.2 Bank as a Probationary Officer on 31st July,
1975. He was confirmed as an Officer in Junior Management
D Grade Scale-I on 31st July, 1977. In course of time, he was
promoted to Middle Management Scale-II (August, 1984).
Thereafter, he was further promoted as Officer in Middle
Management Scale-Ill in August, 1994. In course of time, he
was posted as the Branch Manager at Washi Turbhe branch
E on 31st January, 1998 and was officiating in the Senior
Management Scale-IV.
5. Whilst he was working at Washi Turbhe branch, it was
discovered that the branch had indulged in fraudulent
transactions to the tune of Rs. 12 crores. Ori 8th July, 1998, the
F appellant was relieved from the branch of the aforesaid bank,
presumably due to his alleged involvement in the said
transactions. On 16th July, 1998, he apparently reported the
fraud to the Crime Branch, CBD, Belapur, Navi Mumbai. The
A.G.M. in charge of the Region IV, State Bank of India, Zonal
G Office, Mumbai was also informed. In the complaint made to
the police, he had requested that the culprits who are involved
in the fraud be identified. He had also asked the police to
initiate suitable action against the culprits in accordance with
law.
H
AVINASH SADASHIV BHOSALE (D) THR. LRS. v.
95
UNION OF !NOIA [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
6. It is claimed by Mr. Bhosale that instead of taking action
A
on the complaint submitted by him, the A.G.M. on 22nd July,
1998 wrote to the police indicating that the appellant had no
locus standi to file the complaint. It was stated that Mr. Bhosale
"is not an authorised person to lodge a complaint on behalf of
the Bank, since he himself is involved in the alleged offence in
B
the above matter." As noticed earlier, the appellant was relieved
from the Branch on 8th July, 1998. He had protested that he
had an excellent and unblemished service record in the Bank
for the past 23 years. He maintained that he was entirely
innocent and did not commit any breach of the service c
regulations of the bank. He pointed out that he proceeded on
leave on account of sickness on 26th March 1998 and also that
he was mostly either on leave or on some outdoor assignment
duties during the period immediately preceding the detection
of the said fraudulent transactions. Further, it has been claimed
0
that certain officials in the Bank in connivance with each other
committed fraud by purchasing cheques without his knowledge.
7. The appellant was suspended from service on 23rd July,
1998 alongwith one Mr. Yadneshwar Choudhary. However, the
latter was soon reinstated in service as he was not made a coE
accused in the criminal proceedings initiated against Mr.
Bhosale and three other co-accused.
8. It appears that after completion of investigation by the
police, the appellant was prosecuted for having committed the
offences punishable under Sections 120(B), 420, 467, 468,
4 71 and 201 of Indian Penal Code alongwith three others who
were the account holders. By judgment dated 4th December,
2001, Mr. Bhosale and the other co-accused were acquitted
of all the charges.
F
G
9. Simultaneously to the criminal proceedings, the
respondent bank had initiated departmental proceedings
against Mr. Bhosale. He was served a charge sheet dated 14th
January, 2000 containing articles of charge and statement of
imputation of misconduct in terms of Rule 68(2)(iii) of the State
H
96
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 9 S.C.R.
A Bank of India Officers Service Rules, 1992 (hereinafter referred
to as the "1992 Rules"). In the aforesaid charge sheet certain
specific and serious allegations have been made against Mr.
Bhosale. The statement of imputation alleges that after his
transfer at Washi Turbhe Branch on 31st January, 1998 from
B Rabala Trans Thane Creek Branch, he permitted M/s Kalgindar
Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. to open a current account at
Washi Turbhe Branch without completing the required
formalities. Further, the account was allegedly opened with a
view to accommodate the said construction company at a later
c date by executing the fictitious Demand Draft (D.D.) purchase
transactions. The statement of imputation thereafter tabulates
the departure from established norms which are to be observed
by the Bank for DD purchase. It is alleged that Mr. Bhosale
indiscriminately and without any justification authorised D.D.
0 purchase of 11 cheques aggregating to Rs.5,51,51,070/- drawn
in favour of M/s Kalgindar Construction Company Pvt. Ltd. and
presented by it for credit of proceeds thereof to its Current
Account. All the cheques so discounted except one for Rs.5 lacs
were beyond the discretionary powers vested in Mr. Bhosale.
While allowing D.D. purchases, no D.D. purchase limit was
E fixed for the said construction company, nor was the
genuineness of the transactions or credentials of the parties
ascertained by Mr. Bhosale. All the D.D. purchase transactions
in question were also not reported to the Controllers. The high
value cheques were allowed to be handed over to the
F representative of the said construction Company, instead of
dispatching them to the Bank's branch located at the centre by
Regd. A.O. Post. This deliberate action of Mr. Bhosale
facilitated the said construction company to perpetrate a fraud
on the Bank as the said cheques did not reach the drawee
G Banks.
10. Charge No.2 narrates a similar incident where Mr.
Bhosale allowed M/s. Kumar Constructions Company, a
proprietory firm, to open a current account on 15th June, 1998
H without making enquiries of antecedents of the proprietor and
AVINASH SADASHIV BHOSALE (0) THR. LRS. v.
97
UNION OF INDIA [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
completing the other required formalities with a malafide
A
intention to accommodate the aforesaid company at a later
date by allowing fictitious D.D. purchase of cheques.
Thereafter, the actual details of the D.D. purchase are
tabulated.
B
11. The third Charge in the list of allegation relates to
M/s. Kalani Builders and Developers Pvt. Ltd., dealing in
construction business. The aforesaid company submitted a
proposal prepared by a Chartered Accountant for being
extended credit facilities. Based on the aforesaid proposal, Mr.
C
Bhosale sanctioned cash credit limit of Rs.20 lacs (fund based)
and Rs.20 lacs (non-fund based). All this was done by him
without making independent enquiries, carrying out presanction survey, arranging visits by the field officer or by himself,
properly scrutinizing and appraising the proposal, compiling an
opinion report on the borrowers and the guarantors and
D
obtaining recommendations of the field officer. Mr. Bhosale,
within a period of one month from the date of sanction of cash
credit limit on 1st June, 1998 permitted D.D. purchase of a high
value cheque for Rs.31,00,980/-, which was beyond his
discretionary powers. He had not ascertained the genuineness
E
of the large value D.D. purchase transaction nor made enquiries
about the credentials of the drawer of the cheque. He also
allowed cash withdrawals of Rs.30 lacs. Further, he directed
the Dispatch Clerk to hand over the said purchased cheque to
the representative of the said company for dispatching it to the
F
drawee Bank instead of dispatching it by Regd. A.O. Post.
Charge No. 3(iii) alleges that on 9th May, 1998, Mr. Bhosale
issued a Letter of Credit for Rs.19,87;000/- on behalf of Mis.
Kalani Builders Pvt. Ltd., without proper scrutiny/assessment
of the required particulars. Even the counter guarantee was not
G
obtained, nor was it ensured that obligations of- the said
company would be met on due date. Due to his reckless
financing and allowing D.D. purchase to M/s. Kalani Builders
and Developers Pvt. Ltd., the Bank suffered a huge financial
loss to the extent of Rs.70 lacs. He wanted to conceal the facts
H
98
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 9 S.C.R.
A of his irregular financing and, therefore, he did not obtain prior
sanction of the Controllers or reported for post facto
confirmation of the Controllers.
12. Charge No.4 alleges that Mr. Bhosale indiscriminately
B sanctioned loan aggregating to Rs.56.43 lacs to 19 borrowers
under "Big Buy Scheme for purchase of vehicles during 30th
April, 1998 to 1st June, 1998." In these transactions, quantum
of loans was to be related to the income of the borrowers.
However, this basic factor was totally neglected.
C
13. Charge No. 5 points to the expenditure of Rs. 4.35 lacs
incurred by Mr. Bhosale during the period from March, 1998
to June, 1998 for carrying out repairs to Bank's Property and
providing furniture at the Branch. This was done without inviting
any competitive quotations and without seeking approval from
D the Controlling Authority.
14. Charge No.6 relates to 86 bills of stationery items
amounting to Rs.1.16 lacs. Here again, the expenditure was
incurred without seeking sanction from the Controlling Authority.
E On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, it was held that Mr.
Bhosale failed to discharge his duty with utmost integrity,
honesty, devotion and diligence to ensure and protect the
interest of the Bank and acted in a manner in violation of Rule
50(4) of the 1992 Rules.
F
15. Thereafter, the enquiry proceedings were initiated
against Mr. Bhosale. Mr. P.P. Thomas, Officer, Senior
Management Grade Scale-V was appointed as the Inquiry
Officer on 30th June, 2000. The preliminary hearings of the
inquiry were scheduled to be held on 7th September, 2001 and
G 25th September, 2001, none of which were attended by Mr.
Bhosale, despite being reminded in advance by the Inquiry
Officer. Consequently, the preliminary hearing proceedings
were held ex-parte. The regular hearing of the inquiry was
scheduled for 17th January, 2002. Again, Mr. Bhosale
H expressed his inability to attend the same on account of
AVINASH SADASHIV BHOSALE (0) THR. LRS. v.
99
UNION OF INDIA [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
sickness. The hearing of the inquiry was, therefore, postponed
A
to 18th March, 2002, whereupon the regular hearing was
conducted by the Inquiry Officer, in the presence of the
presenting officer Mr. D.R. Bapat and Mr. Bhosale. The entire
evidence, including the statement of Mr. Suresh Mahadeva
Mahale was recorded in the presence of Mr. Bhosale. Mr.
B
Mahale was working as a dispatcher at Washi Turbhe Branch
during the period when the irregularities were committed
thereat. Further, both Mr. Bhosale and the presenting officer
were directed to submit their respective written briefs.
Consequently, the presenting officer submitted a brief on 8th c
April, 2002, whereas Mr. Bhosale submitted his brief on 6th
June, 2002.
16. Finally, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 19th
August, 2002, whereby it was held that all the charges have
been proved against Mr. Bhosale. A copy of the Inquiry Officer's
D
report was made available to Mr. Bhosale for his submissions.
It appears from the record that Mr. Bhosale had submitted a
detailed defence to the findings of the Inquiry Officer. Ultimately,
the Disciplinary Authority in its Order dated 19th July 2003
rejected all the pleas raised in defence by the appellant. Upon
E
careful examination of the entire material on record, the
disciplinary authority passed the following effective order:-
"The C.O. has also contended that the I.A. has not taken
into consideration the acquittal of the C.O. in the criminal
F
case as a sufficient and judicial proof of there being no
misconduct on his part. He has further stated that the I.A.
has not considered the fact finding reports compiled by the
Bank officials S/S. Vasant Karve and Mukand Joshi, which
have not implicated the C.O. for the lapses mentioned in
<3
the charge sheet served on him.
The Court has acquitted the C.O. of offences punishable
under Indian Penal Code, whereas the departmental action
is for his misconduct in terms of Rules 66 of the SBIOSR.
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
100
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 9 S.C.R.
The above submissions have no relevance to the
allegations inasmuch as the allegations levelled against the
C.O. have been inquired by the I.A. in the departmental
enquiry as per the procedures adopted I in-vogue in
departmental enquiry. Reasonable opportunity was given
to the C.O. to put up his defence before the I.A. After
evaluating the evidence brought before the inquiry, the I.A.
has held the allegations as proved.
On a careful examination and consideration, the
submissions of the C.O. are found to be not convincing and
hence not acceptable. I, therefore, considering the case
in its entirety in my capacity as the Disciplinary and
Appointing Authority, hold all the allegations and the charge
as a whole as "Proved" on sufficient and acceptable
evidence. The proven allegations are very serious in nature
which have exposed the Bank to substantial financial loss.
The proven misconduct evidently speaks of lack of honesty
and integrity on the part of the Charged Officer.
Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, I
am of the view that retaining the officer in the Bank's
Service is fraught with grave risks. I, therefore, consider
that imposition of penalty of "Dismissal" under rule 670) of
the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules on Shri A.
S. Bhosale, Officer, MMGS Ill (under suspension), would
meet the ends of justice, treating the period of suspension
undergone by the official, as such. I order accordingly.
The C.O. may, if he so desires, prefer an appeal against
this order to the Appellate Authority within 45 days from
tbe date of receipt thereof in terms of Rule 69(1) and (2)
ibid."
17. Against the aforesaid order of dismissal, Mr. Bhosale
preferred a statutory appeal on 19th August, 2003 under the
1992 Rules. Upon consideration of the submissions made by
Mr. Bhosale in the appeal by Order dated 27th February, 2004,
H the Appellate Authority (Chief General Manager) dismissed the
AVINASH SADASHIV BHOSALE (0) THR. LRS. v.
101
UNION OF INDIA [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
same. The relevant observations made by the Appellate
A
Authority are as under:-
"I have examined the entire reco(ds of the case and on
the basis thereof observe as under, seriatim:
(i)
The contentions of the appellant are without basis.
B
The entire inquiry process has been correctly
followed and fair opportunity has been provided to
the appellant to defend himself.
(ii)
The Inquiry Authority in his report has unequivocally c
stated that the preliminary hearing, which was to be
held on 17th August, 2001 was postponed to the
7th September, 2001, due to the charged official's
absence. Later the hearing scheduled for 7th
September, 2001 was also postponed to 25th
D
September, 2001, for the same reasons. The
appellant's submission that the Inquiring Authority
was biased therefore has no basis.
(iii)
The appellant's contention seems to be an after
E
thought since in the Regular hearing on the 18th
March, 2002, the appellant did not raise objections
on this count. Moreover, during the hearing, the
appellant confirmed having received these
documents (presenting Officer's exhibits).
F
(iv)
It is apparent from the inquiry proceedings that the
defence was provided a fair opportunity to defend
itself. The appellant's attempt to cry foul at this
juncture is therefore not valid.
(v)
This argument of the appellant does not have any
G
basis. The charge sheet had clearly outlined these
details.
(vi)
The process followed in a departmental inquiry is
H
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
102
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 9 S.C.R.
distinctly different from that followed in a
proceedings before the court. The appellant's
~ontention is therefore not acceptable.
(vii) The appellant cannot disclaim responsibility on this
count. As the head of the Branch, he should have
ensured that the Bank's instruction relating to
dispatch of instruments (DD Purchased) should
have been meticulously followed. Moreover, PW-1
(the dispatch clerk) has confirmed in the
proceedings held on 18th March, 2002 that the
covers containing the instruments were delivered at
the behest of the appellant.
(viii) The Inquiring Authority's conclusion that the initials
on the Demand Liability Register were those of the
appellant is supported by reasoned logic. The
Inquiring Authority has lucidly portrayed as to how
he reached such a conclusion.
(ix)
al
Allegation 1 (i) & (ii) :
The appellant cannot disown the fact that cheques
were purchased for large amounts. He further
cannot disassociate himself by stating that other
officers permitted the withdrawals in the account.
Moreover, the officials who permitted these
withdrawals had done so, on the basis of the credit
balance available in the account(s).
(b) Allegation 1 (iii) :
In addition to stating that the cheques were
delivered to the beneficiary at the instructions of
Shri Balkawade, the witness had affirmed that
these were also delivered at the behest of the
appellant. His contention that the prosecution did
not introduce key witness is irrelevant.
AVINASH SADASHIV BHOSALE (D) THR. LRS. v.
103
UNION OF INDIA [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
(c) Allegation 1 (iv) :
A
The submission of the appellant has no basis.
( d) Allegation 2(i) and (ii) :
It has been proved in the inquiry that DD Purchases
B
were authorised by the appellant. His attempt to
pass the responsibility to officials who passed the
withdrawals in the account is not appreciated.
Further, it is a fact that tee account was not properly
introduced.
c
( e) Allegation2(iii), (iv) and (v) :
The appellant is merely trying to raise vague issues.
As already stated earlier, the Inquiry Authority has
very aptly concluded that the initials in the Demand
D
Liability Register were that of the appellant.
(f) Allegation 3 :
By merely stating that the documents were in the
custody of the Field Officer, the appellant cannot
E
disclaim responsibility. It was also open to the
appellant to produce the field Officer as a defence
witness.
(g) Allegation 4:
F
The allegation have been proved based on the
documentary evidence produced by the Presenting
Officer in the course of the inquiry proceeding. The
appellant has during the regular hearing held on
G
18th March, 2002 confirmed having verified the
documents. His contention that no document was
produced in the ihquiry is therefore incorrect.
(h) Allegation 5 :
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
104
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 9 S.C.R.
The allegation has been proved based on
documentary evidence. Splitting of Bills has been
proved from the fact that 111 bills were paid in
respect of 7 items of expenditure.
(i) Allegation 6 :
The allegation was proved based on documentary
evidence. From the evidence brought out in the
inquiry it is apparent that the appellant split bills
pertaining to stationery items, in order to ensure that
the amount of the split bills falls within his
discretionary powers.
(x)
Although there has been some delay in the issuance
of the charge sheet, the appellant's claim that it had
amounted to denial of opportunity to establish his
innocence is not maintainable.
(xi)
The Honourable Court had acquitted the appellant
on the subject matter of criminal conspiracy. The
appellant cannot draw a parallel between the
findings of the departmental proceedings and the
Court's verdict.
Having so considered the various points brought
out in the appeal, I am of the view that the appellant
has not been able to put forth any convincing point
of merit. The appellant has committed serious and
grave irregularities. There is therefore no scope for
modification of the penalty imposed on him. I
therefore reject the appeal and order accordingly."
18. Mr. Bhosale challenged the orders passed by the
Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority by filing
Writ Petition No. 8606 of 2004 in the High Court of Judicature
at Bombay by Order dated 30th March, 2005. The writ petition
was dismissed by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court
AVINASH SADASHIV BHOSALE (D) THR. LRS. v.
105
UNION OF INDIA [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
in limine. The aforesaid Order of the High Court is challenged
A
by Mr. Bhosale in this appeal.
19. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at
length.
20. Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain, learned counsel appearing for
8
the appellant submits that the disciplinary proceedings
conducted against Mr. Bhosale are vitiated as he was acquitted
by the Criminal Court. All the offences for which Mr. Bhosale
was tried, and then acquitted by the criminal court, were
founded on the facts which form the basis of the departmental
C
enquiry. It has been emphasized that the departmental
proceedings ought to have been stayed during the pendency
of the criminal trial. Once the appellant had been acquitted by
the trial court in its judgment dated 4th December, 2001, the
appellant ought to have been reinstated forthwith.
D
21. Mr. Jain submits that continuation of departmental
proceedings after the appellant was acquitted in the criminal
trial is in violation of the principle underlying Article 20(2) of the
Constitution of India. He argues that the statement of
E
imputations of misconduct clearly show that the foundational
facts on which the criminal charges were based are also the
facts forming the basis of the charges levelled against the
appellant. The learned counsel made a detailed and elaborate
reference to the findings recorded by the learned Magistrate,
F
in support of the submissions that there was clearly no evidence
against the appellant on the basis of which the charges could
be said to have been proved.
22. He pointed out that the learned trial court after
considering the entire evidence on record has held and
G
observed as under:-
"18 ............ If at all any foul play was played at the time of
purchasing the cheques, persons like witness no.12
Yadneshwar Choudhary and others were responsible for
H
106
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2012] 9 S.C.R.
A
it who were passing the cheques and putting their
signatures. Instead of prosecuting such persons,
prosecution has made them witnesses. In this way, when
these persons are themselves at fault in the episode,
naturally they will try to save their own skin when entered
B
in the witness box therefore their evidence carries least
evidentiary value.
c
D
E
F
G
H
23 ........ Sufficient evidence has come on record that
d,uring the period of transactions effected in between
accused Nos.1, 3 and 4 with the aggrieved bank, all these
bank officers were working in the bank and were taking
active participation. If really any guilt is committed why all
these persons are left at liberty by the prosecution and how
they can be believed in the court. It has come on record
that P.W. No.12 Yadneshwar Choudhary is suspended
from his service only because of this case. Neither the
Bank Officers nor the police is coming forward to make
such a person accused in the case.
28 ........... Mr. Bhave is very specific in stating that if the
despatch clerk fails to follow this practice, he is personally
liable for the breach. Admittedly, the accused No.2 never
issued any direction in writing to the despatch clerk to give
the cheques by hand delivery.
30 ......... Witness No.7 Suresh Mahadik who is despatch
clerk himself is responsible and faulty in discharging his
_duty.
Witness No.1 O Vinayak Kadam, witness No.11 Arun
Balakawade, witness No.12 Yadneshwar Choudhary are
all employees of the same bank where the incident has
taken place. Not only this, but they actively participated in
the transaction in question. Therefore to save their own
skin, they may blame the Branch Manager. As such their
evidence cannot be believed."
AVINASH SADASHIV BHOSALE (D) THR. LRS. v.
107
UNION OF INDIA [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, J.]
23. Relying on the aforesaid observations, Mr. Jain
A
submitted that the entire departmental proceedings are vitiated
as the appellant has been made scapegoat for the misconduct
committed by other employees of the bank who were acting in
connivance with each other. According to Mr. Jain, the fraud
could not have been committed unless there was connivance
B
at every level from the Clerk to the Deputy Manager. It is for
this reason that Yadneshwar Chaudhary was reinstated in
service and then used as a witness against the appellant. Mr.
Jain emphasised that inspite of efforts made by the respondentBank the learned Judicial Magistrate had clearly held that there
C
is no evidence of criminal conspiracy against the appellant.
Hence, he was acquitted of the offences punishable under
Section 120-B IPC with the following observations :-
"In the result, I come to a firm conclusion that the
accused are entitled to get clean chit in the matter".
D
24. Mr. Jain also pointed out to certain other observations
made by the learned Magistrate to demonstrate that the enquiry
proceedings are vitiated by legal mala-fides as the same were
initiated and conducted against the appellant with the oblique
E
purpose of shielding the real culprits.