Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
H.L. Gokhale And J. Chelameswar, JJ.
Oriental Bank of Commerce & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
S.S. Sheokand & Anr. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3081 OF 2006
Decided On : 26-02-2014
(1996) 9 SCC 69; AIR 1991 SC 1507; AIR 1993 SC 1197 – Relied upon
(b) Service Law – Banking Law – Promotion – Respondent once considered for promotion and not found fit – His past service record was also not satisfactory – No occasion for High Court to direct respondent’s promotion. (Para 19, 20)
Facts of the case:
The respondent was working as the Senior Manager in the appellant-bank.
It was noticed by the bank that he had purchased third party cheques/drafts of huge amounts beyond the discretionary powers of lending without completing the pre-sanction formalities.
In the show cause the respondent admitted committing of the alleged acts. He, however, stated that this was done with the intention of increasing the profits of the bank. He also contended that the bank had not suffered any loss in these transactions.
The appellant-bank, thereafter, charge-sheeted the respondent
The inquiry officer held that the acts of omission and commission on the part of the respondent were essentially in the nature of procedural lapses. He held that the charge of lack of integrity had not been substantiated. Charge No.1 was partly proved.
Charge No.2 was not proved.
Major penalty of reduction of two stages in pay scale was imposed.
The High Court allowed the Writ Petition filed by the respondent
Finding of the Court:
While High Court’s interference with the penalty should be upheld, its direction for promotion cannot.
JUDGEMENT
H.L. Gokhale J. –
This Civil Appeal seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 16.3.2004 rendered by a Division Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition No.18847 of 2001, allowing the said Writ Petition filed by the respondent, a Senior Manager in the appellant-bank. That judgment and order quashed the disciplinary order passed by the appellant-bank reducing him in two stages in pay scale with cumulative effect and also directed that he be considered for further promotion.
The facts leading to this appeal are this wise:-
2. The respondent at the relevant time was working as the Senior Manager in a branch of the appellant-bank at Narwana, Bahadurgarh. It was noticed by the bank that he had purchased third party cheques/drafts of huge amounts beyond the discretionary powers of lending. This was done without completing the pre-sanction formalities. The appellant-bank, therefore, served a show cause notice to the respondent on 26.2.1997 for committing these unauthorised acts. The respondent filed a detailed reply dated 12.4.1997. Therein the respondent admitted committing of the alleged acts. He, however, stated that this was done with the intention of increasing the profits of the bank. He also contended that the bank had not suffered any loss in these transactions.
3. The appellant-bank, thereafter, charge-sheeted the respondent on 1.12.1997 for two specific irregularities, they were as follows:-
“Charge No.1 – Respondent had unauthorisedly purchased 3rd party cheques/drafts of huge amount aggregating to Rs.45.23 crores for a number of parties much beyond his discretionary powers of lending without completing pre-sanction formalities in violation of head office guidelines. Thus he violated Regulation 3(i) of Oriental Bank of Commerce Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulation, 1982.
Charge No.2 – Respondent had released advance under the Prime Minister Rojgar Yojna, and unauthorisedly insisted such borrowers to provide collateral securities in the shape of immovable property and guarantee in violation of the above scheme.”
4. The charge-sheet was followed by an inquiry. The inquiry officer gave a report dated 26.2.1999 which was forwarded by the respondent on 17.4.1999 to make a representation on the findings. In paragraph 4 of the report, the inquiry officer dealt with statement of SW-1 (State Witness No.1) which stated that as per the head office circular, the discretionary powers of the Branch Manager at the relevant time were up to Rs.30 lacs for purchasing bank drafts and government cheques, and up to Rs.1.5 lacs for third party cheques. As against this provision, the respondent had purchased cheques/drafts aggregating to Rs.45.23 crores as per the details produced in the inquiry report. This was done without any authorization, and particularly when the authority of the respondent in this behalf was placed under abeyance. The respondent raised various technical objections with respect to the production of the documents, but essentially contended that his acts, which went beyond discretionary powers, were ratified and confirmed by the higher authorities. He submitted that these instruments were received from the respectable parties to increase the profit of the branch. With respect to the instructions issued to him by the Regional Manager to stop purchasing these cheques and drafts, he submitted that he had not violated these instructions.
5. The paragraph 4.3 of the Enquiry report contains the assessment of evidence on charge No.1. It reads as follows:-
“4.3 Assessment of Evidence:-
Ex. S.27 and S.28 are head office circulars which lay down the discretionary powers of the branch incumbent. SW1 confirmed that during the material time the powers of the BM (Branch Manager) was 30 lacs for purchase of bank draft and Rs. 1.5 lacs for third party cheques. SW1 also confirmed that the CO(Charged Officer) had purchased cheques/drafts beyond his discretionary powers. He deposed that 77 cheques/drafts amountin
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
