EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Vs. D DHANESWARA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Executive Committee of the State Bank of Hyderabad, Head Office at Gunfoundry, Hyderabad and its Managing Director have filed this Writ Appeal assailing the order of the learned single Judge of this Court dated 19-7-1989 allowing the Writ Petition and quashing the order of the appellate authority dated 20-3-1987 confirming the order of removal of the respondent herein passed by the disciplinary authority on 31 -3-1986.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the respondent was working as Branch Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad, Nallakunta Branch, Hyderabad and he was incharge of distribution of loans to weaker sections under the 20 point programme. The allegation against the respondent was that while granting loans to weaker sections, he demanded 20% of the loan amount sanctioned towards illegal gratification. As a result of which, a charge memo was issued levelling three charges against the respondent Thereupon, the respondent filed his explanation. As far as charge No.1` is concerned, there was an allegation of six items of corruption. Out of that, one item relates to the payment of illegal gratification to the respondent by one Balki Baburao (M.W.3) The Enquiry Officer found that payment of Rs.887/- was established though the charge was for Rs. 1,200/- and held that the other charges were not proved. After considering the enquiry report, the disciplinary authority accepted the finding of the Enquiry Officer, as a result of which the respondent was removed from service. Against that, the respondent preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority also confirmed the order of the disciplinary authority by a reasoned order dated 20-3-1987. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent filed a Writ Petition. The learned single Judge allowed the Writ Petition holding that payment of illegal gratification of Rs. 887/- is not established and the finding of the enquiry officer, which was accepted by the disciplinary authority and confirmed by the appellate authority, is not based on the evidence apparent on the face of the record and also not based on the admissible evidence. On other points also, the learned single Judge held against the appellants. Assailing the order of the learned single Judge, this appeal is filed.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. K. Srinivasa Murthy, contended that once a witness states that he paid same amount towards illegal gratification and the same is not contradicted by any other evidence, the same has to be accepted and accordingly the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority accepted the same and imposed the punishment of removal. In this case, M.W3-Baburao deposed that he paid the amount and his evidence is acceptable. Thus, he contends that the removal from service is based on the evidence on record. He further contends that once the allegations are proved in the enquiry and the same are accepted by the appellate authority, this Court will not generally interfere by exercising the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution as an appellate authority. The High Court can only interfere when such finding is based on inadmissible evidence or perverse. In the present case, the evidence of Baburao cannot said as inadmissible evidence and, therefore, it cannot be said that the removal order is passed without any cogent evidence. Hence the learned single Judge, erred in allowing the Writ Petition.