J&K High Court Imposes 25K Costs On "Compulsorily Retired" SBI Employee For Concealing Facts To Mislead Court's Jurisdiction

Rejecting his petition Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal not only denied relief to the petitioner but also underscored the necessity of approaching the Court with clean hands, reinforcing the principles of transparency and honesty in legal proceedings.

“.. When a party suppresses material facts, it renders the proceedings a nullity. It is the duty of every litigant to disclose all material facts, as withholding material facts from the Court not only undermines the process of justice but is also violation of the principle of „coming to the Court with clean hands”, Justice Nargal remarked.

These observations stemmed from disciplinary action taken against one Madan Lal Goria, who was serving as the Manager of SBI's Bharmar Branch in Himachal Pradesh. Goria was compulsorily retired under Rule 67(h) of the State Bank of India Officers Service Regulations (SBIOSR) following allegations of corruption. An FIR was registered against him under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act by the State Vigilance & Anti-Corruption Bureau, Dharamshala, Himachal Pradesh.

Although the Special Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala acquitted Goria of all criminal charges, the disciplinary proceedings within SBI had already led to his dismissal, later modified to compulsory retirement.

Senior Advocate Sunil Sethi, representing Goria, argued that the disciplinary proceedings were flawed as they did not consider his acquittal in the criminal case. He also submitted that the penalty of compulsory retirement was disproportionate to the gravity of the alleged misconduct and the Appellate and Reviewing Authorities failed to provide due consideration to his pleas.

Addressing the preliminary objection with respect to the maintainability of the petition Justice Nargal noted that none of the actions giving rise to the cause of action occurred within Jammu and Kashmir. The disciplinary proceedings, inquiry, and penal orders were all executed in Himachal Pradesh, the court observed and added,

“.. this Court is of the considered view that no cause of action, not even a fraction of cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, the petitioner‟s contention that he was served with the impugned orders in Jammu, does not confer jurisdiction in this Court to adjudicate the instant petition, as this Court lacks inherent jurisdiction to adjudicate the same”

Highlighting the concealment of material facts the court also noted that the petitioner had previously approached the Himachal Pradesh High Court through a writ petition which was dismissed on 01.03.2013. The non-disclosure of this fact in the present petition amounted to a deliberate attempt to mislead the Court, the court underscored.

The Court cited Prestige Lights Ltd. v. SBI and Kusha Duruka v. The State of Odisha to emphasize that litigants must disclose all material facts and that suppression of facts could lead to dismissal of petitions, even if otherwise meritorious.

Emphasising the principle of Clean Hands Justice Nargal reiterated that under Article 226 of the Constitution, equitable relief is not available to those who mislead the Court. He remarked, “The petitioner's conduct of concealing facts and attempting to mislead the judicial process is a serious violation of legal and ethical principles.”

Acknowledging the need to deter such conduct, the Court imposed costs of ₹25,000 on the petitioner. The petition was thus dismissed along with all connected applications, with a directive that the costs must be deposited within the stipulated timeframe. The Court however clarified that the dismissal of this petition would not bar Goria from pursuing remedies before a competent Court with proper jurisdiction.

Case Title: Madan Lal Goria Vs State Bank of India

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw(JKL) 56

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment