IMPORTANT POINT
If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the concerned authority to reconsider the penalty imposed or in rare cases impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof.

Headnote:Administrative Law-Judicial Review Powers-Question as to whether the order of removal of appellant from Bank service was grossly disproportionate-High Court did not go into it in view of 1994(2) SCC 537-Appeal to Supreme Court-In (1995) 6 SCC 749 limited power under the doctrine of proportionately was treated as part of judicial review in Administrative Law-Applying that writ petition remitted to High Court to examine these aspects afresh-Appeal disposed of accordingly.
       Held (referring to (1995) 6 SCC 749) : It is also further stated in the same judgment that "the High Court/Tribunal while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary authority/appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed or to shorten the litigation, it may itself in exceptional and rare cases impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof." In the background or what has been stated above, one thing is clear that the power of interference with the quantum of punishment is extremely limited. But when relevant factors are not taken note of, which have some bearing on the quantum of punishment, certainly the Court can direct re-reconsideration or in an appropriate case to shorten litigation, indicate the punishment to be awarded. It is stated that there was no occasion in the long past service indicating either irregularity or misconduct of the appellant except the charges which were the subject matter of his removal from service. The stand of the appellant as indicated above is that though small advances may have become irrecoverable, there is nothing to indicate that the appellant had misappropriated any money or had committed any act of fraud. If any loss has been caused to the bank (which he quantifies at about Rs. 46,000/-) that can be recovered from the appellant. As the reading of the various articles of charges go to show, at the most there is some procedural irregularity which cannot be termed to be negligence to warrant the extreme punishment of dismissal from service. (Paras 10 & 11)
       Consequently held : These aspects do not appear to have been considered by the High Court in the proper perspective. The writ petition is remitted to the High Court for disposal in the light of what is stated above. (Para 12)
       The appeal stands disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs. (Para 13)

JUDGMENT

Shivaraj, V. Patil, J.-The appellant was and officer in the Allahabad Bank when disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him on account of certain alleged irregularities. Following charges were framed against him:-

ARTICLE - I

That the said Shri K.N. Gupta while functioning as Manager during the period from March, 1983 to April, 1986, allowed advances to various borrowers without observing the norms procedure laid down from time to time by Head Office. Due to his negligence Bank s money is in jeopardy. Out of good number of irregular advances, few cases are taken hereafter.

Advances for pumpsets have been allowed under Minor irrigation loan scheme-

(1) without observing the requirement of possessing the minimum land holding by the borrowers. Few cases having such irregularities are as follows:-

Name Date Amount Land holding Borrower Advance Advance

Sri Ram Ratan 29.3.85 Rs. 4750/- 1.37 acres Ram (Jt.A/c)

Sri Indra Deo 11.3.85 Rs.1200/- 1.64 acres Singh Yadav

(b) Under the aforesaid minor irrigation scheme advances for pumpsets have been allowed without obtaining the completion report of boring from A.D.O. (M.I.). Few such cases are as follows:-

Name of the Date of Amount of Borrower Advance Advance

Sri Narain & others 6.6.84 Rs. 8536.00

25.5.84 Rs. 2150.00

Rabindra 13.8.84 Rs. 7800.00

9.8.64 Rs. 4200.00

(c) Under minor irrigation scheme advances for electric Tube Well/pump set have been allowed without verification of electricity. Few examples are as follows:-

Name of the Date of Amount Borrower Advance Advance

Ram Kanwar & Ors. 7.2.85 Rs. 7500.00

Sri Santi 28.3.84 Rs. 7000.00

ARTICLE - II

That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the Yusufpur branch of the Allahabad Bank as Manager the said Sri K.N. Gupta allowed advances to small borrowers under small loan scheme and did not obtain the relative bills. As such the end-use of the loan amount was not ascertained. Few examples are as follows: -

Name of the Date of Amount of Borrower Advance Advance

Sri Kanhiya Lal Verma 12.4.85 Rs. 6000. 00

Smt. Jahan Ara Begam 10.4.85 Rs. 6000. 00

ARTICLE - III

That during the period from March, 1983 to April, 1986 while functioning as Manager in the Yusufpur Branch of Allahabad Bank the said Shri K.N. Gupta ignoring the preliminary norms of Bank s financing did not obtain No Dues Certificate from other financing institutions. Few examples are as follows: -

Name of the Date of Amount of Borrower Advance Advance

Sri Ram Javit 22.6.84 Rs. 9000. 00

Sri Janamjaya Singh 4.3.86 Rs. 4750.00

ARTICLE - IV

That the said Sri K.N. Gupta while functioning as Manager during the period from March, 1983 to April, 1986 allowed advance of Rs.25,000/- under SEEUT scheme to Sri Shashi Kumar Upadhyay on 30.3.1984 for purchase of Tempo Taxi. Again the finance was allowed to Sri J.P. Pandey on the same vehicle without adjusting the outstanding in the loan amount of Sri Shashi Kumar Upadhyay. He has thus jeopardized Bank s money.

ARTICLE - V

That during the aforesaid period from March, 1983 to April 1986 while functioning in the Yusufpur Branch of the Bank as Manager the said Shri K.N. Gupta allowed advances to such borrowers just for extending them the benefit of subsidy money, few such examples are as follows:-

Name of the Date of Amount of Borrower Advance Advance

Smt. Ugani Devi 1.3.86 Rs.4250.00

Sri Kapoor Chand 27.3.86 Rs.4750.00 Singh Yadav

By this aforesaid negligence and irregular action Sri Gupta has violated the rules 3(1) & 3(3) of Allahabad Bank Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 which amounts to misconduct under

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 361

Cases Referred (4)