http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 10  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  1495 of 2008

PETITIONER: Chandra Prakash Singh & Ors

RESPONDENT: Chairman, Purvanchal Gramin Bank & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22/02/2008

BENCH: P. P. Naolekar & Lokeshwar Singh Panta

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

CIVIL APPEAL NO.  1495 OF 2008 [Arising out of S. L. P. (C) No.3725 of 2005]

Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.

1.      Leave granted. 2.      This appeal by special leave filed by Shri Chandra  Prakash Singh and others [hereinafter referred to as the  ’Appellants’] is directed against the Judgment and Order dated  27.01.2005 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of  Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.38011  of 2004.  By the impugned judgment, the High Court  dismissed the Writ Petition in which prayer for quashing of the  examination for promotion of the Clerk-cum-Cashier and  Officer Scale I to the post of Officers Scale-I and Officer Scale- II respectively and for quashing the resolution passed by the  Board of Directors of the Gramin Bank on 28.08.2004 and  other consequential reliefs, came to be dismissed. 3.      The relevant and necessary facts giving rise to the filing  of the appeal may be stated.  Basti Gramin Bank [hereinafter,  referred to as ’Gramin Bank’] is one of the Regional Rural  Banks constituted under Section 3 of the Regional Rural  Banks Act, 1976 [hereinafter referred to as ’the Act’].  Section  6(2) of the Act lays down that Gramin Bank is sponsored by  the State Bank of India which has got 35% shareholding,  whereas the Government of India has got 50% shareholding  while State of U.P. has got balance 15% shareholding.  The  Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by  Section 29 read with Section 17 of the Act, after consultation  with the National Bank and the Sponsor Bank, notified the  Regional Rural Banks (Appointment and Promotion of Officers  and Other Employees) Rules, 1998 [hereinafter referred to as  ’the Rules’].  The Third Schedule of the Rules deals with the  appointment to different categories of officers and other  employees to Group A, B and C either by direct recruitment or  by promotion.  Clause 2 of the Schedule deals with the  promotion/appointment to the post of Scale II Officer while  Clause 3 deals with the promotion/appointment to the post of  Scale I officer.  Clause 2 also provides that the post of Scale II  Officer shall be filled entirely by promotion on the basis of  seniority-cum-merit.  It further provides that the selection of  the candidates shall be made by the Committee on the basis of  written test, interview and assessment of Performance

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 10  

Appraisal Report for the preceding five years as an officer in  Scale I and that the Committee for considering promotion shall  consist of the Chairman of the concerned Regional Rural  Bank, a Director nominated by the Sponsor Bank and a  Director nominated by the National Bank.  Sixty (60) marks  are prescribed for the written test while twenty (20) marks are  fixed for the interview test and twenty (20) marks for  Performance Appraisal Report. So far as the  promotion/appointment to the post of Scale I officer is  concerned, Clause 3 provides that 50% shall be appointed by  direct recruitment and 50% by promotion and that promotions  shall be made on the basis of seniority-cum-merit.  In the case  of direct recruitment, the selection of candidates shall be made  by the Banking Services Recruitment Board on the basis of  written test and interview, while in the case of promotion, the  selection of the candidates shall be made by the Committee on  the basis of written test, interview and Performance Appraisal  Report.  The composition of the committee is the same as in  the case of promotion/ appointment to the post of Scale II  officer but 70 marks have been prescribed on the basis of the  written test, 20 marks have been allotted for interview and the  remaining 10 marks for Performance Appraisal Report. 4.      In the year 2001, 47 posts of Scale II officer and 16 posts  of Scale I officer were required to be filled in the Gramin Bank.   The Board of Directors of the Gramin Bank in its meeting held  on 20.09.2001 approved the holding of the written  examination by the Institute of Banking Personnel Selection,  Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as ’the Banking Institute,  Mumbai’].  A Circular was issued on 09.07.2002, fixing 18th  August, 2002 the date on which the written test was stated to  be held.  All the appellants appeared at the written test  without any protest on any ground whatsoever. 5.      It appears from the record that one Mr. Tiwary, Director  of Gramin Bank on 22.10.2001 made a complaint to the  Finance Minister, Government of India, giving details of  corruption and financial irregularities committed by the  officers of the Gramin Bank.  On 25.06.2002, Uttar Pradesh  Gramin Bank Officers and Workers Organization alleged to  have submitted a complaint to the Chief General Manager,  State Bank of India, against the Chairman of the Gramin  Bank. 6.      The appellants filed writ petition in the High Court of  Allahabad praying for quashing of the test held on 18.08.2002  inter alia on the ground that the test was conducted by the  then Chairman of the Gramin Bank, Sri Zameer Hasan \026  Respondent No.10 herein, in spite of the fact that his real  brother-Syed Mohd. Rizvi and cousin-Kazim Hussain Rizvi  who were working as Clerk-cum-Cashiers, were also the  candidates for promotion to the post of officer Scale I.   Respondent No.10 on 28.05.2004 was transferred as General  Manager of the Gramin Bank, Deorai, but he still declared the  result of the examination on 01.06.2004. The State  Government appointed inquiry committee consisting of two  officers of the Directorate of Institutional Finance, Lucknow.   The Committee submitted its report on 18.07.2004 which was  forwarded to the Gramin Bank by the Secretary, Banking  Department, Government of U.P. through communication  dated 27.07.2004.  The appellants prayed that in view of the  report submitted against improper functioning and acts of  commission and omission of the officers/officials of the  Gramin Bank, the examinations should be cancelled and fresh  examinations be conducted.  The record reveals that after the  written test was held on 18.08.2002 the Workers’ Association  of the Gramin Bank filed a civil suit in which an injunction  was granted by the trial Court as a result of which, the result

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 10  

of the written test could not be declared and it was only on  31.05.2004 when the trial Court rejected the application for  grant of temporary injunction that the candidates could be  called for interview for the post of Officer Scale II and Officer  Scale I after declaration of the result of the written test by the  Chairman of the Gramin Bank on 02.06.2004 and 07.06.2004  respectively.  The names of the appellants did not appear in  the said list.  The writ petition was filed on 17.09.2004 when  the High Court, in view of the report dated 18.07.2004 while  granting time to the respondents in the writ petition to file a  counter affidavit, ordered that the process of selection may go  on but no appointments be made.  The interviews were  subsequently held on 23.09.2004 and 24.09.2004 respectively. 7.      The stand of the Gramin Bank before the High Court in  its counter affidavit was that the written examination was  conducted by the Banking Institute, Mumbai after the  approval of the Board of Directors of the Gramin Bank; the  inquiry conducted by the Committee was ex parte since no  information was sought for by the members of the Committee  from the Gramin Bank and even otherwise, the State  Government has no authority or power to exercise any control  over the Gramin Bank since under Section 29 of the Act, the  bank is governed by the policies of the Central Government.   The Gramin Bank also stated that the alleged report has not  pointed out any infirmity in the process of conducting the  written examination and promotions to the key posts had been  stalled to the detriment of the interest of the Gramin Bank  initially because of the injunction granted by the civil Court  which was vacated on 31st May, 2004 and thereafter the  process was completed.  The First Appeal from the order filed  against the rejection application was dismissed by the High  Court on 16th September, 2004.  It was contended that the  writ petition would suffer from delay and laches. 8.      In the High Court, four successful candidates, namely,  Ashok Kumar, Rajendra Babu, Satyendra Kumar Srivastava  and Ravi Pratap Singh filed impleadment applications which  were allowed by the High Court.  The newly added respondents  filed detailed counter affidavits.  The parties have completed  their pleadings.  Having heard the learned counsel for the  parties and having perused the entire record, the High Court  has not found any substance in the writ petition of the  appellants and accordingly dismissed the same inter alia  holding that the Banking Institute, Mumbai, an examining  body, was not a party in writ petition; the appellants have  failed to prove allegation of mala fide against Sri Zameer  Hasan, the then Chairman of the Gramin Bank; the appellants  are estopped from challenging the examination held on 18th  August, 2002 as they had participated in the said  examination; the appellants are members of Workers’ Union  who filed the suit in the trial Court and as such the appellants  are playing hide and seek with the Court and the inquiry  report does not indicate that the examination was vitiated due  to influence of Sri Zameer Hasan \026 respondent No.10.  Hence,  the appellants have filed this appeal questioning the  correctness and validity of the judgment of the High Court. 9.      We have heard learned counsel for the parties and  examined the entire material on record. Mr. Raju  Ramachandran, learned senior Advocate  appearing on behalf  of Shri Chandra Prakash Singh \026 appellant No.1, vehemently  contended that the High Court gravely erred by holding that  the appellants have failed to prove allegations of mala fide or  bias against respondent No.10 in the face of the report  submitted by the Committee appointed by the State  Government which creates some cloud and a real likelihood of  bias on the part of respondent No.10, who, at the relevant

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 10  

time, was Chairman of the Gramin Bank having some  influence over the Institution helping his brother and cousin  in the selection for the posts in question.  He submitted that  as there existed a doubt, which is required to be cleared, the  Gramin Bank being a statutory independent body in all its  fairness, ought to have held some independent inquiry to the  complaint made by the appellants and others in regard to the  selection of the candidates in arbitrary and unfair manner by  the Institution, who conducted the examination.  In support of  his submissions, reliance is placed upon the judgment of this  Court in Jitendra Kumar & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr.  [2007 (14) SCALE 125].  We have gone through the judgment  in which it has been held that the decision making process  should veer round the question in regard to the lack of bona  fide or an act of arbitrariness on the part of the State.  If lack  of bona fide or arbitrariness on the part of the State is proved,  whether the right is considered to be a vested or accrued right,  or otherwise a negative right, the superior Court may exercise  its power of judicial review.  The judicial intervention would,  thus, be possible only when a finding of fact is arrived at in  regard to the aforementioned acts of omissions and  commission on the part of the State and not otherwise.  In our  view, there cannot be any quarrel or dispute in regard to the  above-mentioned proposition of law, but the law has to be  applied in the facts and circumstances of each case.  In the  present case, the facts situation is totally different and,  therefore, this decision is of no assistance to the appellant  No.1.   10.     Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate appearing on behalf of  the appellant nos. 2 to 8, contended that the appellants have  proved on record that the written examination stood vitiated  because the test was conducted by respondent No.10 in which  his real brother and cousin also appeared for promotion to the  post of officer Scale I.  In support of this submission, reliance  is placed upon the report dated 18th July, 2004 submitted by a  Committee of two officers which was communicated to the  Gramin Bank by the Secretary, Banking Department, by his  letter dated 27th July, 2004.  He also submitted that the bias  of respondent No.10 is writ large on the face of the record as  the result of the written test was declared on 01st June, 2004  by Sri Zameer Hasan as Chairman of the Gramin Bank in  spite of the fact that he took transfer on 28th May, 2004.  He  next contended that the question papers set by the Banking  Institute, Mumbai, were kept by respondent No.10 in his  custody although as per practice the question papers were to  be kept in the custody of two officers of the Bank and the  answer sheets were also kept by him in his custody before  dispatching them to the institute for evaluation which were  dispatched by a private courier and not through the postal  services.  He further contended that one of the relatives of  respondent No.10, namely, Syed Md. Rizvi, was on medical  leave during the period when the written examination was  conducted, but still he was permitted to appear in the  examination which would show that the selection of the  candidates for the promotion to the posts, in question, was  processed in hot haste manner with mala fide intention and  with sole object to get Sri Syed Md. Rizvi and Sri Kazim  Hussain Rizvi, the real brother and cousin of respondent  No.10, selected.  According to the learned counsel, the said  instances are sufficient to create a reasonable apprehension in  the mind of the appellants that there was likelihood of bias of  the respondent No.10, who might have influenced the  examination body to get his near relatives selected in the  written test.  Thus, the High Court has failed to appreciate the  factual situation and legal aspect of the matter in proper

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 10  

perspective manner.  In support of the submissions, reliance  is placed on the decisions of this Court in Ashok Kumar Yadav  & Ors. v. State of Haryana  & Ors. [(1985) 4 SCC 417] and  Krishna Yadav and Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors. [(1994) 4  SCC 165]. 11.     In order to appreciate the contentions of the appellants,  we have gone through both the said decisions.  In Ashok  Kumar Yadav’s case (supra), two members of the Haryana PSC  did not participate in the interview and had retired from the  room when the interviews of their respective relatives were  held.  Moreover, neither of them took any part in any  discussion in regard to the merits of his relatives nor was  there anything brought on record to show that the marks or  credits obtained by their respective relatives at the interview  were disclosed to them.  The Court was, thus, of the view that  there was no infirmity attaching to the selections made by the  Haryana Public Service Commission.   This Court stated that  one of the fundamental principles of our jurisprudence is that  no man can be a judge in his own cause.  The question is not  whether the Judge is actually biased or in fact decides  partially but whether the circumstances are such as to create  a reasonable apprehension in the mind of others that there is  a likelihood of bias affecting the decision.  If there is a  reasonable likelihood of bias it is "in accordance with natural  justice and common sense that the justice likely to be so  biased should be incapacitated from sitting".  The basic  principle underlying this rule is that justice must not only be  done but must also appear to be done.  The Court further held  that this rule is not confined to cases where judicial power  stricto sensu is exercised.  It is appropriately extended to all  cases where an independent mind has to be applied to arrive  at a fair and just decision between the rival claims of parties.   Since the instrumentalities of the State are expected to  discharge their functions in a fair and just manner the  applicability of this rule is extended to the decision-making  process of a selection committee constituted for selecting  personnel for service in such instrumentalities.  Further, it is  held that if a selection committee is constituted for the  purpose of selecting candidates on merits and one of the  members of the selection committee is closely related to a  candidate appearing for the selection,  it would not be enough  for such member merely to withdraw from participation in the  interview of the candidate related to him but he must  withdraw altogether from the entire selection process and ask  the authorities to nominate another person in his place on the  selection committee, because otherwise all the selections made  would be vitiated on account of reasonable likelihood of bias  affecting the process of selection.   12.     In Krishan Yadav’s case (supra), the selection of Taxation  Inspectors by Subordinate Selection Board was set aside being  vitiated by fraud and arbitrariness on the basis of accepting  the CBI report.  In the said case, serious allegations were  made against the Selection Board which was referred by  Supreme Court of India to CBI for investigation.  CBI Report  revealing acts of favouritism, selections without interview as  also on the basis of fake or ghost interviews, tampering with  final records, fabrication of documents, forgery, keeping the  selection list a secret, issuing appointment letters after calling  selected candidates and obtaining joining reports from them  on the spot without any medical test and verification of  antecedents and destroying the original records including the  answer books.  On the basis of these serious allegations  against the Selection Board, which are found to be genuine  and truthful by the CBI during the investigation, this Court  set aside the entire selection being vitiated by fraud, nepotism

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 10  

and arbitrariness.   13.     Dr. Dhruv Mehta, Advocate appearing on behalf of  respondent Nos. 1 to 6 and respondent No.10 - Sri Zameer  Hasan Ex-Chairman/General Manager, on the other hand,  made submissions in support of the judgment of the Division  Bench of the High Court.  He contended that the allegation of  bias or mala fide alleged by the appellants against respondent  No.10 is vague and irresponsible which is not established by  the appellants by leading any evidence in support thereof.  He  contended that the examination for promotion to the post of  officers Scale I from the Clerk cadre as well as promotion to  the post of scale II was conducted by the Banking Institute,  Mumbai, a body duly approved by the Reserve Bank of India  and promoted by All India Commissioner Banks and not by  respondent No.10, the then Chairman of the Gramin Bank  and the list of successful candidates for interview to the post  was published by the Chairman vide Order dated 02.06.2004  and subsequently the list of successful candidates for  interview to the post of Officer Scale-I was published by the  General Manager of the Gramin Bank vide Order dated  07.06.2004.  He submitted that the inquiry got conducted by  the State Government through its agency, was totally against  the provisions of the law as the Gramin Bank has been  established under the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 which  is an instrumentality of the Central Government and,  therefore, the State Government has no control whatsoever  over the Gramin Bank to order an inquiry.  He contended that  no allegation of change of answer sheets or manipulation of  the marks has been alleged or pleaded by the appellants in the  writ petition and no supporting evidence except bald assertion  of mala fide has been alleged against respondent No.10 by the  appellants nor any allegation of bias or mala fide has been  alleged against the Examination Committee or the Selection  Committee consisting of one Director of the Sponsor Bank and  one Director of the National Bank, who interviewed the  selected candidates whose names were sponsored by the  Examination Committee.   14.     Mr. M.N. Krishnamani, learned senior Advocate  appearing for respondent No.15, submitted that the appellants  have not made any allegation regarding the promotion of the  selected candidates from Scale I to Scale II, therefore, there is  no perversity or illegality in the judgment of the High Court  which requires interference by this Court.  In nutshell, the  learned counsel appearing on behalf of the contesting  respondents including some of the selected candidates have  contended that the well-reasoned judgment of the High Court  does not suffer from any infirmity or perversity warranting  interference by this Court.  In support of their contentions, the  learned counsel has placed reliance upon the decisions of this  Court in State of Punjab v. V.K. Khanna and Ors. [(2001) 2 SCC  330] and the recent judgment of this Court in Dhampur Sugar  (Kashipur) Ltd. v. State of Uttaranchal and Ors. [(2007) 8 SCC  418]. 15.     In State of Punjab v. V.K. Khanna’s case (supra), this  Court held that the concept of fairness in administrative  action has been the subject-matter of considerable judicial  debate but there is total unanimity on the basic element of the  concept to the effect that the same is dependent upon the facts  and circumstances of each matter pending scrutiny before the  Court and no strait-jacket formula can be evolved therefore.   Further it is stated that as a matter of fact, fairness is  synonymous with reasonableness and on the issue of  ascertainment of meaning of reasonableness, common English  parlance referred to as what is in contemplation of an ordinary  man of prudence similarly placed \026 it is the appreciation of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 10  

this common man’s perception in its proper perspective which  would prompt the Court to determine the situation as to  whether the same is otherwise reasonable or not.  Similarly,  the existence of mala fide intent or biased attitude cannot be  put on a strait-jacket formula but depends upon facts and  circumstances of each case.  Further, it is said that whereas  fairness is synonymous with reasonableness \026 bias stands  included within the attributes and broader purview of the  word "malice" which in common acceptation means and  implies "spite" or "ill will".  Mere general statements will not be  sufficient for the purposes of indication of ill will.  There must  be cogent evidence available on record to come to the  conclusion as to whether, in fact, there was a bias or a mala  fide move which resulted in the miscarriage of justice.  It is  also held that the test of bias is as to whether there is a mere  apprehension of bias or there is a real danger of bias and it is  on this score that the surrounding circumstances must and  ought to be collated and necessary conclusion drawn  therefrom.  In the event, however, the conclusion is otherwise  that there exists a real danger of bias, administrative action  cannot be sustained.  If on the other hand allegations pertain  to rather fanciful apprehension in administrative action,  question of declaring them to be unsustainable on the basis  therefor, would not arise. 16.     In Dhampur Sugar (Kashipur) Ltd. v. State of Uttaranchal  and Ors.’s case (supra), this Court dealing with the question of  mala fide exercise of power, held as under: "Allegations of mala fide are serious in nature and  they essentially raise a question of fact.  It is,  therefore, necessary for the person making such  allegations to supply full particulars in the  petition.  If sufficient averments and requisite  materials are not on record, the Court would not  make "fishing" or roving inquiry.  Mere assertion,  vague averment or bald statement is not enough to  hold the action to be mala fide.  It must be  demonstrated by facts.  Moreover, the burden of  proving mala fide is on the person leveling such  allegations and the burden is "very heavy".  In the  present case, except alleging that the policy was  altered by the Government to extend the benefit to  IGL, no material whatsoever was placed on record  by the appellant.  It is, therefore, not possible to  hold that the impugned action was mala fide or  malicious."

17.     In the light of the above-said settled law, we have  examined the facts and circumstances of the case in hand.  In  the present case, it is not in dispute that the Board of  Directors of the Gramin Bank in its meeting held on 20th  September, 2001 approved the holding of the written  examination of promotion by the Banking Institute, Mumbai  for 47 posts of Scale II officers and 16 posts of Scale I officers.   A Circular to that effect was issued on 09th July, 2002 fixing  18th August 2002 as a date on which the written test was  scheduled to be held.  The appellants appeared at the written  test but they could not qualify the test.  Sri Zameer Hasan \026  respondent No.10, at the relevant time, was the Chairman of  the Gramin Bank whereas respondent nos. 2, 3 & 5 to 9 were  the Directors of the Gramin Bank.  Sri J.K. Lahri \026 respondent  no. 4 was the Director of the Gramin Bank as nominee of the  State Bank of India and Sri D.P. Sanda \026 respondent No.11  was Director of Banking Institute, Mumbai.  The merit list of  the successful candidates was prepared by the Banking  Institute, Mumbai which was sent to the Gramin Bank.  The

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 10  

list containing the names of the selected candidates was  placed on the Notice Board by respondent No.10 being  Chairman of the Bank on 01st June 2004.  In between the  holding of the written test on 18th August, 2002 and placing  the selected list of the successful candidates on the notice  board on 01st June, 2004, there was an interim injunction  order operating against the Gramin Bank not to declare the  result passed by the Civil Court in suit filed by the Workers’  Association of the Gramin Bank which was subsequently  vacated on 31st May, 2004 permitting the Gramin Bank to hold  the interview for the post of officer Scale II and Officer Scale I  after declaration of the result of the written test.  Respondent  No.10 was transferred on 28th May, 2004 as General Manager  of the Gramin Bank, Deorai, but he has not relinquished the  charge till the date of declaring the result of the written test.  It  is also established on record that on 07th June, 2004, the  successor Chairman of respondent No.10 placed the same  merit list of the successful candidates on the Notice Board for  the inspection of the candidates.  The names of the appellants  herein did not appear in the said select list.  The personal  interviews of the successful candidates were held on 23rd  September, 2004 and 24th September, 2004.  The inquiry  ordered to be conducted by the State Government in regard to  the mismanagement and other irregularities etc. of the Gramin  Bank, was ex parte without giving any intimation to the Board  of Directors of the Gramin Bank.  The State Government ex  facie does not exercise any control over the Gramin Bank since  under Section 29 of the Act, the Gramin Bank is governed by  the policies of the Central Government.  The High Court in its  judgment has observed that the report submitted by the  members of the committee appointed by the State Government  did not point out any infirmity in the conduct of the written  examination.  The appellants have not made the Banking  Institute, Mumbai, who conducted the examination, as party  in writ petition nor any allegation of mala fide or mal- practice  has been alleged against the institution.  The appellants have  also not made Sri Syed Md. Rizvi, brother, and Sri Kazim  Hussain Rizvi, cousin, respectively of the respondent No.10 as  parties in the writ petition who, admittedly, were the  successful candidates in the written test for the posts in  question.  The written test was not conducted by respondent  no.10 nor was he heading the selection committee.  All that  has been alleged in paragraphs 11 and 14 of the writ petition  by the appellants reads as under:- "11.    That the written-test was held on 18.8.2002  which was conducted by opposite party no.10, who  was officiating Chairman of the Bank at that time.

14.     That it was specifically mentioned in the  above mentioned complaints that the opposite  party No.10, was making grounds for promoting  his real brother and his cousin namely Syed Md.  Rizvi and Kazim Hussain Rizvi, who are already  employed in the Bank as Clerk cum Cashier and  he wants their promotion to Officer Scale I."

The above-extracted allegations are absolutely vague,  indefinite and did not contain sufficient material as required  under law in support thereof.  The appellants have not  established on record that respondent No.10-Sri Zameer  Hasan, the then Chairman, was an instrument in getting his  brother and cousin through in the written examination and  later on it was under his influence that the Selection  Committee had selected his two relatives for the posts in  question.  In addition to the decisions referred to above, this

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 10  

Court in Tara Chand Khatri vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi  & Ors. [AIR 1977 SC 567]; E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu  & Anr. [AIR 1874 SC 555] and M/s. Sukhwinder Pal Bipan  Kumar & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors. [AIR 1982 SC 65] held  that the burden of establishing mala fide is very heavy on the  person who alleges it.  The Court, would, therefore, be slow to  draw dubious inferences from incomplete facts placed before it  by a party, particularly when the imputations are grave and  they are made against the holder of an office which has a high  responsibility in administration.  Such is the judicial  perspective in evaluating charges of unworthy conduct against  ministers and other, not because of any special status\005..but  because otherwise, functioning effectively would become  difficult in a democracy. 18.     In M. Sankaranarayanan, IAS v. State of Karnataka &  Ors. [AIR 1993 SC 763], this Court observed that the Court  may "draw a reasonable inference of mala fide from the facts  pleaded and established.  But such inference must be based  on factual matrix and such factual matrix cannot remain the  realm of institution, surmise or conjecture."   In N.K. Singh v.  Union of India and Ors. [(1994) 6 SCC 98], this Court held that  the inference of mala fides be drawn by reading in between the  lines and taking into account the attendant circumstances. 19.     Thus, as a proposition of law, the burden of proving mala  fide is very heavy on the person who alleges it.  Mere allegation  is not enough.  Party making such allegations is under the  legal obligation to place specific materials before the Court to  substantiate the said allegations.  There has to be very strong  and convincing evidence to establish the allegations of mala  fides specifically and definitely alleged in the petition as the  same cannot merely be presumed.  The presumption under  law is in favour of the bona fides of the order unless  contradicted by acceptable material.  In the present case, no  specific and definite real danger of bias has been made against  respondent no.10 to indicate how he was in a position to  influence or manipulate the result of the written test  conducted by the Banking Institute, Mumbai.  There are no  specific pleadings nor any proof thereof in the writ petition  filed by the appellants.  In such circumstances, the Court is  under no obligation to entertain the pleas of mala fide or  arbitrariness.  In the backdrop of the facts and circumstances  of the present case and in the light of the settled law, we agree  with the reasoning recorded by the High Court that there are  no proper pleadings nor there is any other evidence brought  on record by the appellants to substantiate the sweeping, bald  and unfounded allegation of mala fide alleged against  respondent No.10 - Sri Zameer Hasan. 20.     The two member committee appointed by the State  Government in its report made certain observations that Sri.  Zameer Hasan \026 respondent No.10 had declared the result of  the written test on 01st June, 2004, despite the fact that he  stood transferred on 28th May, 2004, the answer-sheets should  not have been sent to the Banking Institute, Mumbai, by  courier service and the answer-sheets and the question papers  were not kept in the joint custody, but the respondent No.10  had kept them in his own custody and that one candidate had  appeared at the examination even though he was on leave are  not substantiated by any evidence.  It is a fact that respondent  no.10 has not filed any independent counter to the writ  petition, but the respondent - Gramin Bank in its counter has  answered and explained each and every paragraph of the writ  petition.  It was the case of the respondent \026 Gramin Bank  before the High Court that Sri Zameer Hasan \026 respondent  No.10 was relieved from the post on 01st June, 2004 and the  list of the successful candidates submitted by the Banking

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 10  

Institute, Mumbai, to the Gramin Bank, was placed on the  Notice Board on 02nd June, 2004 by respondent No.10 which  was again circulated by the successor Chairman on 07th June,  2004.  The candidate, who was on medical leave, in fact had  appeared in the written examination during his leave period.   The mere assertion of the appellants that one selected  candidate could not have appeared in the written test, because  during the relevant time he was on leave, in the absence of  any supporting evidence cannot be accepted.  Further, no  infirmity or illegality appears to have been committed by the  then Chairman, Gramin Bank, by sending the answer books to  the Banking Institute, Mumbai, by courier service.  The  Gramin Bank has categorically stated that the question papers  and answer-sheets were kept in the joint custody of the  Chairman and one Director of the Bank.  The report submitted  by the State Committees also did not indicate in any manner  whatsoever that there was some fault with the written  examination.  There is no averment whatsoever in the report  which may indicate that the list of the successful candidates  was not in accordance with the merits of the candidates  prepared by the examining body.  We are, however, satisfied  on the material placed before us that the appellants have been  given fair treatment in the written test held by the Institute  but as they had failed to qualify the test, they, on any  legitimate ground, cannot be permitted to allege wholly  unfounded, irresponsible and uncalled for allegations of  favoritism or mala fide against respondent No.10.  For the lack  of specific and definite allegations of mala fide in the writ  petition supported by the evidence in proof of such facts of  mala fides, the writ petition of the appellants has been rightly  rejected by the High Court.  We find no fault or infirmity or  perversity in the reasoning of the High Court warranting  interference in this appeal.   

21.     For the above said reasons, there is no merit in this  appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed.  In the facts and  circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their  own costs.