In Disciplinary Proceeding, Burden Of Proof Depends On Nature Of Charge And Explanation Put Forward By Employee: Supreme Court
Case: State Bank of India v. A.G.D. Reddy
Coram: Justices J.K. Maheshwari and K.V. Vishwanathan
Case No.: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11196 OF 2011
Court Observation: “It is well settled that, in a disciplinary proceeding, the question of burden of proof would depend upon the nature of the charge and the nature of the explanation put forward by the respondent. In a given case, the burden may be shifted to the respondent depending upon the explanation”.
“In the light of the above, the finding of the Enquiry Officer that the respondent, by his negligence, did not stipulate this in his recommendation to the Branch Manager and, as such, the advance could not be collaterally secured by creation of equitable mortgage cannot be said to be perverse or based on no evidence.”
“No doubt, on the facts of the present case, on some aspects of the charge, the proof may have been found wanting since the law laid down by this Court is that unless punishment imposed is only co-relatable to any of those charges found not proved, the penalty cannot be set aside. In this case, the punishment can be sustained even if the charges held not proved are severed.
Previous Posts
