IMPORTANT POINT
The Bank Manager/Officer and employees of any Bank nationalised/or non nationalised are expected to act and discharge their functions in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Bank and acting beyond one s authority is by itself a breach of discipline and Trust and a misconduct.

Headnote:SERVICE LAW-State Bank of India Officer s Services Rules, 1992-Rule 69(2)-State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules-Rule 34(3)-Bank Manager sanctioning a loan to his wife-Punishment of removal awarded by Appellate Authority is just and proper-Appellant realizing the mistake by not encashing the draft issued in the maiden name of his wife though the draft was issued but not encashed-Appellant held entitled to full pension and gratuity irrespective of his total period of service-Appellant had joined services of the Bank as a clerk in 1963-He was chargesheeted for irregularities committed by him while working as Branch Manager from 1982-1984-There were total seven charges imputed against him-Only one charge pertaining to grant of advance to his wife was proved against him-Punishing Authority imposed punishment of reduction in substantive salary at one stage from Rs. 4020 to Rs. 3900 in terms of Rule 49(e) of the Rules-Appellant filed appeal against the order of punishment challenging it severe when only one charge out of seven was proved-Appellate Authority, however, proposed to enhance the penalty imposed upon the appellant to an order of dismissal-Order of enhancement of penalty-Whether the appellate Authority had rightly exercised its power in enhancing the punishment-(Yes).
       Held : It is also pertinent to notice that the appellant in his appeal before the Appellate Authority admitted that he had committed misconduct of disbursing the loan to his wife in a Scheme, which is meant for Educated Unemployed Youth. Mr. Ramamurthy submitted that the appeal filed by the appellant should not have been considered as the same was time barred and cannot in our opinion be accepted. The appeal was required to be filed within 45 days of the date of receipt of the order appealed against. The order of the Disciplinary Authority is dated 23.10.1991 and the appeal was filed by the appellant on 10.1.1992. The appellant was well aware while filing the appeal that his appeal was not filed within the period of limitation as provided under Rule 51(2) of the Service Rules. The appellant having filed the appeal cannot now go around and say that the appeal should have been dismissed on the ground of limitation. The reason is obvious. We, therefore, do not find any merit or substance in the submission in regard to the consideration of the appeal on merits even though it is time barred. It has to be presumed, that delay, if any, was condoned by the Appellate Authority while entertaining the appeal and decide the same on merits. Rule 69(5) expressly provides that the authority competent thereunder may, for good and sufficient reasons or if sufficient cause is shown, extend the time specified thereunder for anything required to be done thereunder or condone any delay. This rule is corresponding to Rule 51(2) of the old Rule. (Para 13)
       In regard to the second contention that the consideration of the charge which had not been proved by the appellate authority, Mr. Ramamurty submitted that the appellate authority had considered the charges which were not proved while enhancing the punishment. According to Mr. Ramamurthy, the appellate authority was mere concerned with charge No.5 regarding disbursement of loan to the wife of the appellant in violation of Rule 33(1) of the Service Rules and that the Order of the Appellate Authority does not in any manner disclose that the same was passed by considering the circumstances germane to the charge against the appellant which had been proved. Even accepting the contention of Mr. Ramamurthy on Charge No.1, the appellant cannot come out of the charge No. 5, which is more serious and grave in nature. However, we observe that the observations made by the Appellate Authority on Charge No.1 while considering charge No.5, should be treated only as a passing observation and at the same time we cannot ignore or close our eyes in regard to the finding of the appellate authority on Charge No.5 which is more serious and grave in nature. The appellate authority had enhanced the punishment imposed by following the procedure laid down in the service Rules and we see no reason to interfere with the same. As already noticed, the appellant had himself admitted his misconduct and therefore, there is no reason why the appellate authority s finding on charge No. 5 should not be accepted. (Para 14)
       It is true that the appellate authority has proposed to enhance the punishment and imposed the penalty of dismissal on the appellant. However, the appellate authority was convinced with regard to the explanation submitted by the appellant and reduced the penalty further considering the adverse family circumstances. (Para 16)
       A reading of the show-cause notice and the final order passed by the appellate authority clearly go to show that the appellate authority has thoroughly considered the detailed submissions made by the appellant and has reached its conclusion on the facts and circumstances of the case and has modified the proposed penalty of dismissal to that of the penalty of removal. There is total application of mind on the part of the appellate authority in arriving at the conclusion in regard to punishment. (Para 28)
       The Bank Manager/Officer and employees and any Bank nationalised/or non-nationalised are expected to act and discharge their functions in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Bank. Acting beyond one s authority is by itself a breach of discipline and Trust and a misconduct. In the instant case Charge No. 5 framed against the appellant is very serious and grave in nature. We have already extracted the relevant rule which prohibits the Bank Manager to sanction a loan to his wife or his relative or to any partner. While sanctioning the loan the appellant do not appear to have kept this aspect in mind and acted illegally and sanctioned the loan. He realized the mistake later and tried to salvage the same by not encashing the draft issued in the maiden name of his wife though the draft was issued but not encashed. The decision to sanction a loan is not an honest decisions. The Rule 34(3)(1) is a rule of integrity and therefore as rightly pointed out by Mr. Salve, the respondent Bank cannot afford to have the appellant as Bank Manager. The punishment of removal awarded by the Appellate Authority is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. (Para 33)

JUDGMENT

Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J.-This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 7th November, 2001 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 540 of 1996 filed by the appellant herein to quash and set aside the order dated 10.5.1995 and for a writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent-Bank to reinstate the respondent with back wages and with arrears of service and all other service benefits which are consequential to reinstatement in service and for other incidental and ancillary relief. The Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant herein for the reasons recorded therein. The appellant in this appeal questioned the order of removal from service by the Appellate Authority.

2. The appellant joined the services of the Bank as a clerk in 1963. He was chargesheeted for such irregularities committed by him while working as Branch Manager of Konkan Bhavan Branch of the Bank from 1982-1984. There were total seven charges imputed against him. The Enquiry Officer appointed by the Disciplinary Authority conducted an enquiry and submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority. In his report, the Enquiry Officer dropped one charge out of seven charges and out of remaining six charges five charges had not been proved. The Enquiry Officer held that only charge No. 5 pertaining to grant of advance by the appellant to his wife was proved. This Enquiry Report did not contain any recommendation regarding punishment. According to the appellant, this report was not communicated to him for more than two years. On 24.4.1991, the Disciplinary Authority sent the report of the Enquiry Officer to the appellant and he was asked to make his representation on the report. The Disciplinary Authority recommended to the Punishing/Appointing Authority of the appellant the punishment of reduction in substantive salary at one stage from Rs. 4020 to Rs. 3900 in the terms of Rule 49(e) of the Rules. The Punishing Authority who was the appointing Authority of the appellant relied on the recommendations of the disciplinary authority and imposed the punishment accordingly.

3. The appellant preferred an appeal against the order of punishment dated 21.10.1991 before the Appellate Authority and pleaded that the punishment imposed upon him was too severe and in fact of the case that only one charge out of seven was proved. The appellate Authority, however, proposed to enhance the penalty imposed upon the appellant to an order of dismissal. He ordered the punishing authority/appointing authority to issue a notice to the appellant under Rule 69(2) of the State Bank of India Officer s Services Rules 1992 (hereinafter called the "Rules") to show cause why the penalty should not be enhanced as proposed. By this time new Rules of 1992 had come into force to regulate the service conditions of the Bank Officers. The appointing authority communicated the above order to the appellant asking him to submit his contentions. The appellant submitted his detailed reply against the proposed order of dismissal. On 10.5.1995 the appellate Authority decided to enhance the penalty inflicted from reduction in basic pay by one stage to removal from service instead of dismissal as earlier proposed on 24.5.1995. The disciplinary authority communicated the above order to the appellant. The appellant through his advocate made an attempt for justice to the Chairman requesting for review in his case. It was replied that Rule 69(3) of the Rules does not provide it mandatory for the Reviewing Authority to make review of each and every order passed by the competent authority. Being aggrieved by the imposition of penalty the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court and the High Court vide its order dated 7.11.2001 dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant accepting that the appellate Authority had rightly exercised its power in enhancing the punishment. Thus the Special leave petition. Leave was

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2004 Supreme(SC) 1423

Cases Referred (17)