Jurisprudence

K. L. Tripathi State Bank of India and Others

SUBMITTED BY:

RAHUL MAHESHWARI

PRN: 15010224035

Division – A

BBA LLB (2015-2020)

Of

Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA

Symbiosis International University, PUNE

In

October, 2015

UNDER THE GUIDANCE OF

Dr Mohd Salim

Symbiosis Law School, Noida

 Certificate

The project entitled “K. L. Tripathi State Bank of India and

Others” submitted to the Symbiosis Law School, NOIDA
for as part of Internal assessment is based on my original
work carried out under the guidance of Dr. Mohd Salim
from 2nd July 2015 to 30th September. The research work
has not been submitted elsewhere for award of any
degree.

The material borrowed from other sources and

incorporated in the thesis has been duly acknowledged.

I understand that I myself could be held responsible and

accountable for plagiarism, if any, detected later on.

Signature of the candidate

Date
 Acknowledgements

I would like to express my regards to our director Dr. C.J.

Rawandale and our professor Dr. Mohd Salim for providing me
with the opportunity to study the judgment of” in detail and
present an analysis of the same in my project and for guiding me
from time to time and helping me to complete my project.

I would also like to thank everyone who helped me organize and

refine my project and clarify my doubts.
 INTRODUCTION

SHRI K. L. Tripathi, the appellant herein joined the State Bank of India in
1955. At the relevant time, he was working as Branch Manager, State Bank
of India, Deoria. But some time after complaints were received about his
conduct from other branches of the bank, which on further investigation
came to an end result as the appellant (K L Tripathi) was found to delay in
retiring of bills which to be payed, and but in the further investigation it was
found that, by the acts of appealant no actual harm was caused to the Bank
so involved and therefor the apealant was reduced with charges but was still
punished under State Bank of India (Officers and Assistants) Service Rules-
Rule 49(f).

FACTS
The appellant at the relevant time was working as Branch Manager, State
Bank of India. The charge against him was that he had acted in violation of
procedure, rules and Instructions of the bank and disregarded all safeguards
in sanctioning the overdrafts and encashing bills with a view to cover up
attempts to misappropriate bank's money after defrauding the bank and that
his conduct exposed the bank to grave risks. Departmental proceedings
were commenced against him in terms of Rule 49 read with Rule 50 of the
State Bank of India (Officers and Assistants) Service Rules and he was
associated with the preliminary proceedings. Though information and
materials viz. the versions of the persons, the particular entries requiring
examination etc., were not gathered in his presence but the same were
conveyed to him and his explanation was asked for. He participated in the
investigation, gave his explanation but he neither disputed any of the facts
questioning the veracity of the witnesses or the entries or the letters or
documents shown to him upon which the charges were framed and upon
which he was found guilty, nor asked for any opportunity to call any
evidence to rebut those facts. He only asked for a personal hearing which he
got. He was really consulted at every stage of preliminary investigation upon
which the charges were based and upon which proposed action against him
had been taken. His explanations were duly recorded. After considering his
explanations and his reply to the statement of charges served on him, the
Local Board in its meeting resolved to dismiss him from service under Rule
 49(f). Thereafter, the appellant by the said rule was required to submit his
written statement showing cause why the penalty proposed should not be
imposed upon the appellant. He inter alia stated that none of the charges
could be made the basis of any disciplinary action specially action of
dismissal, and that on account of technical mistake where the bank had not
suffered any monetary loss or any other type of loss and in view of his long
service for more than 20 years during which his service as Officer Grade I
was excellent no action could or should be taken against him. He also
alleged that the enquiry was in violation of the principles of natural Justice
Inasmuch as while recording the statements against him, he was neither
informed nor those statements taken and signed in his presence. His
explanation along with other necessary papers was forwarded to the
Executive Committee of the Central Board and the Central Board in its
meeting duly considered the same and directed that the appellant be
dismissed from the bank's service with immediate effect. The appellant was
duly communicated to the said effect and was dismissed from service. The
appellant preferred a writ petition before High Court under Article 226
alleging contravention of the State Bank of India (Officers and Assistants)
Service Rules. The High Court dismissed the petition holding that the Rules
had no statutory effect and as such the petitioner-appellant could not
enforce any statutory right. Dismissing the appeal the Supreme Court

HISTORY
“K. L. Tripathi State Bank of India and Others1” the case was first filled
as an writ petition in The High Court Of Allahabad but was dismissed and
then went to appeal in The Supreme Court where the decision was given.

ISSUIES
The mai issuie in this case was that the appellant, bank manager was
fraudulent and was alleged under the under State Bank of India (Officers
and Assistants) Service Rules-Rule 49(f).

1
1978 Indlaw ALL 1, 1978 (2) LLJ 457
 ANALYSIS
Appellant was employee of respondent/Bank. Complaints were received
about appellant's conduct from Gorakhpur Bank Staff Officer. Enquiry was
conducted and report was submitted to head office, head office directed to
carry out investigation. After investigation charges were framed. Appellant
received letter from Chief General Manager intimating to him that he was
dismissed from service. Appellant replied and stated that he was not guilty
of the charges. Executive Committee considered same and directed that
appellant be dismissed from Bank's service. Appellant filed writ application
before HC and same was dismissed. Hence instant appeal was filled.
Whether enquiry resulting in dismissal of appellant, principles of natural
justice had been violated and appellant was not given fair opportunity to
defend himself. Held, provision of rules under which enquiry was conducted,
procedure had been followed, appellant was allowed to show that evidence
against him was not worthy of credence or consideration. Nature of
investigation conducted in which appellant was associated, there had been
no infraction of that principle due to which infraction of any principle of
natural justice by absence of formal opportunity of cross-examination
Neither cross-examination nor opportunity to lead evidence by delinquent
was an integral part of all quasi-judicial adjudications. Though reasons have
not been expressly stated, these reasons were implicit namely, nature of
charges, explanation offered and reply of appellant to show cause notice,
therefor appeared from fair reading of order impugned in this case, It
further, appeared that there was consideration of those facts and decision
was arrived at after consideration of those reasons. It was manifest,
therefore, that absence of any denial by appellant, indeed admissions of
factual basis and nature of explanation offered by appellant were considered
by authority to merit imposition of penalty of dismissal. Such conclusion
could not be considered to be unreasonable or one which no reasonable man
could make, therefor Appellant was not charged for defrauding Bank and he
was charged mainly for conduct which suggested that he acted improperly
and in violation of principles on which sound banking business should be
conducted and charge against appellant was that he had acted in violation of
procedure of Bank, he had disregarded all safeguards in sanctioning
overdrafts, encasing bills and his conduct had exposed bank to grave risks
and that he had flagrantly violated bank rules and instructions with view to
cover up attempts to misappropriate bank's money after defrauding bank.
Whether actual misappropriation had been caused or bank defrauded or not
were not relevant in respect of charges against him and the regarding to
record of service of appellant prior to conduct revealed in this case and
further in view of fact that actually no loss had been occasioned to Bank by
improper conduct of appellant, if Bank considered in interest of justice that
appellant should be given some job or employment in some capacity which
might mitigate or compensate in some measure grave loss suffered by
appellant consequent on dismissal order, Bank might consider taking such a
course of action. And then the appeal was dismissed.

CONCLUSION
It can be concluded that the judgment procided by the judge was in
accordance with the so said law and according to the doctrine of fairness and
equity.