{"id":12981,"date":"2002-01-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-01-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chander-vashisth-vs-chief-general-manager-state-bank-on-4-january-2002"},"modified":"2018-01-29T22:24:15","modified_gmt":"2018-01-29T16:54:15","slug":"ramesh-chander-vashisth-vs-chief-general-manager-state-bank-on-4-january-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chander-vashisth-vs-chief-general-manager-state-bank-on-4-january-2002","title":{"rendered":"Ramesh Chander Vashisth vs Chief General Manager, State Bank … on 4 January, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court<\/div>\n
Ramesh Chander Vashisth vs Chief General Manager, State Bank … on 4 January, 2002<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 2002 IIIAD Delhi 940, 2002 (62) DRJ 193, 2002 (94) FLR 834<\/div>\n
Author: D Jain<\/div>\n
Bench: D Jain<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
 D.K. Jain, J. <\/p>\n
 1. Rule.\n<\/p>\n
2. With the consent of counsel for the parties
\nthe petition is being disposed of at this stage itself.\n<\/p>\n
 3. The petitioner, an employee of State Bank of
\nIndia, respondent No. 1 herein, has filed this writ
\npetition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
\nseeking a writ of certiorari, calling for the records
\nof the disciplinary proceedings held against him and
\nquashing of order dated 8 August, 1994, whereby the
\nappellant authority, respondent No. 2 herein, has
\ndirected that by way of penalty the petitioner be
\n“brought down by one stage in the basic pay in the time
\nscale”. He also seeks a writ of mandamus directing
\nrespondent No. 2 to give effect to the order of his
\npromotion dated 1 November 1992, with all consequential
\nbenefits.\n<\/p>\n
 4. The petitioner was appointed as Rural
\nDevelopment Officer on 21 April 1973 at Bulandshahar.
\nSubsequently he was transferred to Kapashera branch,
\nNew Delhi in July 1981, where he took charge some time
\nin August 1982. In June 1989, nearly four years after
\npetitioner’s transfer from Kapashera branch, a study of
\nadvances given by the said branch was conducted as it
\nwas noticed that the bank had performed poorly. On the
\nbasis of the said study on explanation was called from
\nthe petitioner by the Regional Manager. The petitioner
\nfurnished his reply on 21 July 1989. However, not
\nsatisfied with the explanation, Departmental inquiry
\nwas ordered against him, by issuing charge sheet vide
\nmemo dated 13 July 1990, for commission of alleged
\nmisconduct. The charge-sheet contained eight
\nimputations. On conclusion of the inquiry proceedings
\nthe inquiry officer held that out of eight imputations
\nthree were proved, three more were partly proved and
\nthe remaining two were not proved. Agreeing with the
\nfindings of the inquiry officer the disciplinary
\nauthority found the petitioner guilty of committing the
\nfollowing lapses:\n<\/p>\n
 (1) He recommended for sanction of an A.T.L.
\nfor Rs. 2,850\/- to Shri Ram Singh for
\npurchase of a buffalo. The Installments were
\nnot being received regularly. He did not
\ninitiate legal action against the borrower
\nand the outstanding went up to Rs. 7,912.25.\n<\/p>\n
 (ii) He granted a loan of Rs. 3,000\/- to Shri
\nMahender Singh for purchase of a buffalo.
\nThe borrower expired and the documents
\nbecame time-barred during his incumbency.
\nHe failed to get the documents revived well
\nin time and did not take suitable steps to
\ninitiate legal action against the
\nborrower\/guarantors.\n<\/p>\n
 (iii) He did not conduct pre-sanction survey
\nin respect of 14 accounts wherein he
\ngranted\/recommended loans. He failed to
\nfile suits against these borrowers.\n<\/p>\n
 (iv) He granted a loan of Rs. 75,000\/- to
\nShri Pradeep Khanna, resident of Janpura
\nExtension (New Delhi) for purchase of a mini
\nbus and did not obtain prior administrative
\nclearance from his controlling authority for
\nfinancing beyond the area of operation of
\nthe Branch.\n<\/p>\n
 (v) He granted a loan of Rs. 1,42,000\/- to
\nShri Ashok Kumar for purchase of truck
\nwhereas Shri Kumar was already granted cash
\ncredit limit of Rs. 8,000\/-. Both these
\naccounts were running irregular. As both
\nthe activities ursued by the borrower were
\nunconnected making supervision difficult, he
\nshould not have granted second loan without
\nseeking approval from his controlling
\nauthority.\n<\/p>\n
 (vi) He granted a cash credit limit of
\nRs. 20,000\/- to M\/s. Tarun Electrical
\ncontractors for the electric shop, while a
\nbuffalo loan for Rs. 4,000\/- granted to the
\nfirm was already running irregular. The
\noutstanding in Cash Credit Account went
\nup to Rs. 61,601.00.”\n<\/p>\n
 5. The appointing authority, accordingly, accepted
\nthe recommendations of the disciplinary authority and
\nimposed penalty of “reduction in basic pay by two stages
\nin the time scale” on the petitioner. Aggrieved, the
\npetitioner preferred appeal to the appellate authority.
\nAccepting the stand of the petitioner with regard to the
\nextent of loss which bank might have suffered, the
\nappellate authority broadly agreed with the findings
\nrecorded by the disciplinary authority. However,
\nnoticing that irregularities were procedural in nature
\nand no malafides could be attributed to the petitioner
\nas also the fact that the loss likely to be suffered by
\nthe bank was only, marginal, the appellate authority held
\nthat the ends of justice would be adequately met if the
\naforenoted penalty is imposed on the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
 6. The petition is resisted by the respondents by
\nfiling affidavit in reply. By way of preliminary
\nsubmissions it has been explained that the petitioner
\nwho was MMGS-II, and was officiating on the post of
\nMMGS-III, was due for promotion for MMGS-III withe effect
\nfrom 1 August 1988. While the petitioner did not
\nqualify for selection for the years 1988 to 1990, he was
\nconsidered for promotion with effect from 1 November
\n1991 and the result in respect of the interview was kept
\nin a sealed cover as the disciplinary proceedings were
\npending against him. The petitioner was again called
\nfor promotion in the year 1992 and inadvertently his
\nresult was declared vide letter dated 6 November 1992
\nand on the error coming to light, a show cause notice
\nwas issued to the petitioner asking why the promotion
\nletter be not withdrawn. It is pointed out that in view
\nof the order of the appellate authority petitioner was
\nfinally brought down by one stage in time scale in 1994
\nand he has become eligible for promotion only with
\neffect from 1 November 1995. On merits the decision of
\nthe appellate authority is sought to be supported.\n<\/p>\n
 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
\nThough initially Mr. Kavin Gulati, learned counsel for
\nthe petitioner had raised the issue of legality of
\nretrospective withdrawal of letter of promotion dated 6
\nNovember 1992, but during the course of hearing he did
\nnot press the same. However, in support of the
\nsubmission that the penalty order is unsustainable,
\nlearned counsel has vehemently urged two points, namely,\n<\/p>\n
(i) even assuming all the imputation against the
\npetitioner to be correct, no case of “misconduct” could
\nbe made out against him as admittedly the petitioner has
\nnot been found guilty of committing the alleged acts
\nwith malafide or ill motive and (ii) punishment imposed
\nis excessive and disproportionate to the alleged
\nmisconduct committed by him particularly when the
\npenalty imposed is likely to have cascading effect on
\nhis promotions. In support of his first proposition,
\nreliance is placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court
\nin  Union of India and Ors. v. J. Ahmed<\/a> ,
\n State of Punjab and Ors. v. Ram Singh Ex-Constable<\/a>
\n,  D.D. Choudhari v. H.I. Kalyani<\/a> ,  Zunjarrao Bhikaji Nagarkar v. Union of India and
\nOrs.   and a decision of the Calcutta
\nHigh Court in  Dipankar Sengupta v. United Bank of India
\nand Ors.  1998 (79) FLR 212.\n<\/p>\n
 8. Mr. Sanjay Kapur, learned counsel for the
\nrespondents, on the other hand, has submitted that since
\nit has been found by the disciplinary authority as well
\nas appellate authority steps to ensure and protect the
\ninterests of the Bank, in terms of Rule 32(4) of the
\nState Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules
\n(for short ‘the service rules’), it was a clear case of
\nmisconduct. It is also contended that keeping in view
\nthe fact that the petitioner has been found guilty of
\nsome charges, it cannot be said that the impugned
\npunishment is excessive. In support of the first
\ncontention, learned counsel has placed reliance on
\ndecision of the Supreme Court in  Disciplinary
\nAuthority-cum-Regional Manager and Ors. v. Nikunja
\nBihari Patnaik<\/a> . Heavily relying on the
\ndecisions of the Apex Court in  B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union
\nof India and Ors.<\/a>  ,  Nikunja Bihari
\nPatnaik (supra) and  Apparel Export Promotion Council v.
\nA.K. Chopra<\/a> , it is also urged that the
\nscope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings
\nbeing very limited it is not a fit case where this Court
\nshould interfere, particularly when the punishment
\nimposed is not such, which would shock the conscience of
\nthe Court.\n<\/p>\n
 9. Thus, the first and the foremost question that
\narises for consideration in the instant case is whether
\nthe petitioner could be said to have committed any
\nmisconduct on the basis of the findings returned by the
\ninquiry officer?\n<\/p>\n
 10. The term “misconduct” has not as such been
\ndefined in the service rules. However, Rule 48 of the
\nservice rules provides that breach of any of the
\nprovisions of these rules shall be deemed to constitute
\nmisconduct punishable under Rule 49, which in turn
\nprovides for imposition of minor and major penalties,
\nprescribed there under, for act of misconduct. Rule
\n32(4) requires that every employee shall, at all times,
\ntake all possible steps to ensure and protect the
\ninterests of the bank and discharge his duties with
\nalmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and do
\nnothing which is unbecoming of bank official. In this
\nview of the matter, it will have to be ascertained as to
\nwhat constitutes misconduct in the context of
\ndisciplinary proceedings, especially when the said
\ndeeming provision applies equally to both minor as well
\nas major penalties.\n<\/p>\n
 11. In  J. Ahmed’s case (supra) dealing with All
\nIndia Service (Conduct) Rules, 1954 and some other
\nCentral rules, similar in substance to Rule 58 of the
\nService Rules and taking note of the dictionary meaning
\nof the word misconduct, the Apex Court observed as
\nunder:\n<\/p>\n
  “It is, however, difficult to believe that
\nlack of efficiency or attainment of highest
\nstandards in discharge of duty attached to
\npublic office would ipso facto constitute
\nmisconduct. There may be negligence in
\nperformance of duty and a lapse in
\nperformance of duty or error of judgment in
\nevaluating the developing situation may be
\nnegligence in discharge of duty but would
\nnot constitute misconduct unless the
\nconsequences directly attributable to
\nnegligence would be such as to be
\nirreparable or the resultant damage would be
\nso heavy that the degree of culpability
\nwould be very high. An error can be
\nindicative of negligence and the degree of
\nculpability may indicate the grossness of
\nthe negligence. Carelessness can often be
\nproductive of more harm than deliberate
\nwickedness or malevolence.”\n<\/p>\n
 12. In  Ram Singh’s case (supra) again the Supreme
\nCourt while observing that the “misconduct” is not
\ncapable of precise definition and receives its
\nconnotation from the context, said that mere error of
\njudgment, carelessness or negligence in performance of
\nthe duty is not misconduct.\n<\/p>\n
 13. Similarly, in the case of  Dipankar Sengupta
\n(supra) heavily relied upon by learned counsel for the
\npetitioner, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court,
\nheaded by S.B. Sinha, J (as his Lordship then was),
\ndealing with the case of a bank employee placed in a
\nsimilar situation, said that some sort of ill-motive or
\nbad motive is an essential ingredient in imputing
\nmisconduct unto an individual.\n<\/p>\n
 14. At this stage, however, it would be necessary
\nto notice the decision of the Supreme Court in the case
\nof  N.B. Patnaik (supra), heavily relied upon by counsel
\nfor the respondents. In the said decision, dealing with
\nregulations 24 and 3(1) of the Central Bank of India
\nOfficer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations
\n1976, which are pari materia to Rule 48 and Rule 32(4)
\nof the service rules respectively, the Supreme Court
\nobserved that breach of regulation 3 is misconduct
\nwithin the meaning of regulation 34. It was further
\nobserved that every officer\/employee is supposed to act
\nwithin the limits of his authority and that acting
\nbeyond one’s authority is by itself breach of discipline
\nand normally breach of regulation 3. It constitutes
\nmisconduct within the meaning of regulation 24. No
\nfurther proof of loss is really necessary.\n<\/p>\n
 15. Thus, from the aforenoted decisions, it would
\nappear that the word “misconduct” is a relative term,
\nincapable of a precise definition and has to be
\nconstrued with reference to the subject-matter and the
\ncontext wherein the term occurs, having regard to the
\nscope of the Act or Stature, which is being construed.
\nIt has been held that in the context of disciplinary
\nproceedings against a person in public office, a mere
\nnegligence in performance of duty or lack of efficiency
\nor attainment of highest standards in the discharge of
\nduties would not constitute misconduct, unless the act
\ncomplained of arises from an ill-motive. However, it
\nseems that in the case of an employee of a bank, the
\nSupreme Court in case of  N.B. Patnaik (supra) has carved
\nout a distinction to hold that since the employees of
\nthe bank deal with public funds, any indiscipline on
\ntheir part cannot be condoned on the specious ground
\nthat it was not actuated by ulteriro motives or by
\nextraneous considerations. It may be noted that in
\n N.B. Patnaik’s case (supra) the earlier decision in
\n J. Ahmed’s  case (supra) was not noticed by the Apex
\nCourt, though the provision under consideration in that
\ncase was almost similar to that in  N.B. Patnai’s case.\n<\/p>\n
 16. In view of the clear observations of the Apex
\nCourt in  N.B. Patnaik’s case, a later decision, to the
\neffect that failure to observe the prescribed norms and
\ndiscipline by any official\/employee amount to breach of
\nregulation 3 and it cannot be condoned on the ground
\nthat it was not actuated by ulterior motives, I find it
\ndifficult to accept the argument of learned counsel for
\nthe petitioner that the said decision is based on its
\nown peculiar facts and may not be applied. I,
\ntherefore, reject the first contention of learned
\ncounsel for the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n
 17. Now I take up the second contention of learned
\ncounsel for the petitioner with regard to
\nproportionality of the punishment awarded to the
\npetitioner. It is well settled that the disciplinary
\nauthority and on appeal, the appellate authority being
\nfact finding authorities, are invested with the
\ndiscretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in
\nview the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct and the
\nHigh Court, while exercising the power of judicial
\nreview, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on
\npenalty and impose some other penalty. However,
\nirrationality and perversity are recognised grounds of
\njudicial review. Similarly, the doctrine of
\nproportionality is also part of the concept of judicial
\nreview. If the punishment imposed is so
\ndisproportionate to the offence as to shock the
\nconscience of the Court, the Court may appropriately
\nmould the relief either directing the
\ndisciplinary\/appellate authority to reconsider the
\npenalty imposed or to shorten the litigation, it may
\nitself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose
\nappropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support
\nthereof (See :  B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and Ors.
\n and  Zunrajrao Bhikaji Nagarkar<\/a>
\nv. Union of India and Ors.  .\n<\/p>\n
 18. Therefore, the question for consideration is
\nwhether the punishment awarded in the instant case can
\nbe said to be excessive or disproportionate so as to
\nshock the conscience of the Court? I feel that the
\nissue can best be considered in the light of the
\nrelevant service rule providing for imposition of
\npenalties. The rule reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
 “49. Without prejudice to any other
\nprovisions contained in these rules, any one
\nor more of the following penalties may be
\nimposed on an employee, for an act of
\nmisconduct or for any other good and
\nsufficient reasons:-\n<\/p>\n
Minor Penalties:\n<\/p>\n
 (a) censure;\n<\/p>\n
(b) withholding of, increments of pay
\nwith or without cumulative
\neffect;\n<\/p>\n
 (c) Withholding of promotion;\n<\/p>\n
 (d) Recovery from pay or such other
\namount as may be due to him of
\nthe while or part of any
\npecuniary loss caused to the
\nBank by negligence or breach of
\norders.\n<\/p>\n
  Major Penalties:\n<\/p>\n
(e) reduction to a lower grade or
\npost, or to a lower stage in a
\ntime scale;\n<\/p>\n
 (f) compulsory retirement;\n<\/p>\n
 (g) removal from service;\n<\/p>\n
 (h) dismissal.”\n<\/p>\n
 19. The rule does not specify as to what kind of
\nmisconduct is to be visited with a minor or major
\npunishment. The service rules only fix the gradation of
\nthe punishment but evidently leave the discretion in
\nthis regard to the disciplinary authority an din appeal
\nto the appellate authority. Since the service rules
\nenumerate and list out various punishments by way of
\nminor and major penalty and the effect of both the
\npenalties is materially different, the provision casts a
\nduty on the authority concerned to record its reasons
\nwhile awarding a particular punishment, more so when a
\nmajor penalty is proposed. Recording of reasons would
\notherwise be necessary because unless the reasons are
\nindicated, the higher authority cannot find out as to
\nwhat weighed with the concerned authority to inflict a
\nparticular punishment. Needless to say that a penalty
\nhas to be commensurate with the gravity of the
\nmisconduct for that any penalty disproportionate to the
\ngravity of the misconduct would be violative of Article
\n14 of the Constitution of India, warranting interference
\nby this Court.\n<\/p>\n
 20. In the instant case, it would appear that both
\nthe authorities below have failed to consider the said
\naspect of the matter in its correct perspective. As
\nnoticed above, though the appellate authority has come
\nto the conclusion that the irregularities committed by
\nthe petitioner were of procedural nature and that no
\nmalafides could be attributed to him as also the loss
\nlikely to be suffered by the bank was only marginal but
\nthe penalty order does not indicate as to why the
\nappellate authority still chose to impose a major
\npenalty on the petitioner. As noted above, the service
\nrules do not specify as to which kind of misconduct
\nwould attract a minor penalty. Therefore, while
\nimposing a major penalty the order of punishment must
\nindicate that the authority concerned has applied its
\nmind on the question of punishment, although no detailed
\nreasons are required to be assigned. In my view, in the
\npresent case the appellate authority has failed to
\naddress itself to the question as to whether in view of
\nhis aforenoted findings about the nature of irregularity
\nand the conduct of the petitioner a major penalty was
\nstill called for. This, I feel, amounts to
\nnon-application of mind on the part of the disciplinary
\nas well as appellate authority, vitiating the order of
\npunishment.\n<\/p>\n
 21. Under the circumstances, I am of the opinion
\nthat the matter deserves to be sent back to the
\nappellate authority for fresh decision on the question
\nof appropriate punishment in the light of his own
\nfinding about the conduct of the petitioner.
\nAccordingly, to that extent the rule is made absolute.
\nThe writ petition is allowed to the extent that the
\nappellate authority shall consider afresh whether, in
\nthe facts and circumstances of the case, a minor penalty
\nwould suffice. Order in this behalf shall be passed as
\nexpeditiously as practicable but not later than eight
\nweeks of the receipt of this order. There will,
\nhowever, be no order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Delhi High Court Ramesh Chander Vashisth vs Chief General Manager, State Bank … on 4 January, 2002 Equivalent citations: 2002 IIIAD Delhi 940, 2002 (62) DRJ 193, 2002 (94) FLR 834 Author: D Jain Bench: D Jain JUDGMENT D.K. Jain, J. 1. Rule. 2. With the consent of counsel for the parties the petition is […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-12981","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRamesh Chander Vashisth vs Chief General Manager, State Bank ... on 4 January, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chander-vashisth-vs-chief-general-manager-state-bank-on-4-january-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Ramesh Chander Vashisth vs Chief General Manager, State Bank ... on 4 January, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chander-vashisth-vs-chief-general-manager-state-bank-on-4-january-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2002-01-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-29T16:54:15+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"15 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-chander-vashisth-vs-chief-general-manager-state-bank-on-4-january-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-chander-vashisth-vs-chief-general-manager-state-bank-on-4-january-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Ramesh Chander Vashisth vs Chief General Manager, State Bank … on 4 January, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-01-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-29T16:54:15+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-chander-vashisth-vs-chief-general-manager-state-bank-on-4-january-2002\"},\"wordCount\":3086,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-chander-vashisth-vs-chief-general-manager-state-bank-on-4-january-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-chander-vashisth-vs-chief-general-manager-state-bank-on-4-january-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-chander-vashisth-vs-chief-general-manager-state-bank-on-4-january-2002\",\"name\":\"Ramesh Chander Vashisth vs Chief General Manager, State Bank ... on 4 January, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-01-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-29T16:54:15+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-chander-vashisth-vs-chief-general-manager-state-bank-on-4-january-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-chander-vashisth-vs-chief-general-manager-state-bank-on-4-january-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/ramesh-chander-vashisth-vs-chief-general-manager-state-bank-on-4-january-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Ramesh Chander Vashisth vs Chief General Manager, State Bank … on 4 January, 2002\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Ramesh Chander Vashisth vs Chief General Manager, State Bank ... on 4 January, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chander-vashisth-vs-chief-general-manager-state-bank-on-4-january-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Ramesh Chander Vashisth vs Chief General Manager, State Bank ... on 4 January, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chander-vashisth-vs-chief-general-manager-state-bank-on-4-january-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-01-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-29T16:54:15+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"15 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chander-vashisth-vs-chief-general-manager-state-bank-on-4-january-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chander-vashisth-vs-chief-general-manager-state-bank-on-4-january-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Ramesh Chander Vashisth vs Chief General Manager, State Bank … on 4 January, 2002","datePublished":"2002-01-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-29T16:54:15+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chander-vashisth-vs-chief-general-manager-state-bank-on-4-january-2002"},"wordCount":3086,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chander-vashisth-vs-chief-general-manager-state-bank-on-4-january-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chander-vashisth-vs-chief-general-manager-state-bank-on-4-january-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chander-vashisth-vs-chief-general-manager-state-bank-on-4-january-2002","name":"Ramesh Chander Vashisth vs Chief General Manager, State Bank ... on 4 January, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-01-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-29T16:54:15+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chander-vashisth-vs-chief-general-manager-state-bank-on-4-january-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chander-vashisth-vs-chief-general-manager-state-bank-on-4-january-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/ramesh-chander-vashisth-vs-chief-general-manager-state-bank-on-4-january-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Ramesh Chander Vashisth vs Chief General Manager, State Bank … on 4 January, 2002"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12981","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=12981"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/12981\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=12981"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=12981"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=12981"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}