VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

DECISION - 380
759
(C) Court jurisdiction
Power of judicial review is meant to ensure fair
treatment and not to ensure that the authority
reaches a conclusion which is correct in the eye of
the court.
State Bank of India vs. Samarendra Kishore Endow,
1994 (1) SLR SC 516
Respondent, Branch Manager, State Bank of India was
removed form service in disciplinary proceedings. Three charges
related to claim of hiring charges for transport of household goods
on transfer and furnishing of false receipts, the fourth charge related
to deposits in his S.B. Account indicating that he had disproportionate
assets and the fifth to disbursement of a construction loan of Rs. 1
lakh. Disciplinary authority held charge No. 4 as not proved and the
remaining four as proved. A departmental appeal failed but the
Gauhati High Court allowed a writ petition.
Supreme Court held that non-supply of Inquiry Officer’s report
before imposing the penalty does not vitiate the order of punishment
in view of the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme
Court in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad vs. B. Karunakar,
1993 (5) SLR 532 SC, in as much as the order of punishment in the
case is prior to 20.11.1990.
Supreme Court also held that the High Court went wrong in
holding that the finding of guilty on the four charges is based on no
evidence.
For these reasons, Supreme Court set aside the judgment
of the High Court and examined the question of punishment, and
observed that the imposition of appropriate punishment is within the
discretion and judgment of the disciplinary authority. It may be open
to the appellate authority to interfere with it but not to the High Court
or to the Administrative Tribunal for the reason that the jurisdiction of
the Tribunal is similar to the powers of the High Court under Article