2015 Supreme(SC) 927

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Madan B. Lokur, R.K. Agrawal, JJ.
Jagdish Lal Gambhir – Appellant
Versus
Punjab National Bank & Ors. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL No. 6975 OF 2009
Decided On : 6-10-2015

IMPORTANT POINTS
On amalgamation transferee Bank cannot refuse to take over employees of the transferor Bank. However, transferee Banks would be at liberty to initiate disciplinary proceedings against such employees.
Where no formal disciplinary was initiated before amalgamation, transferee Bank will not be precluded from initiating disciplinary proceeding on conduct of the taken over employee.
B. Karunakar held that punishments imposed prior to Mohd. Ramzan Khan without supply of enquiry report would not be disturbed.
Proceedings and punishment will not be vitiated for non-supply of enquiry report if the delinquent is not prejudiced thereby.

Headnote:(a) Amalgamation of Banks – Services of employees – Transferee bank cannot refuse to take over employees of the transferor Bank – However, transferee Banks would be at liberty to initiate disciplinary proceedings against such employees. (Para 4)

       (b) Service law – Disciplinary proceeding – Charge sheet – Competent authority – Appellant an AGM in transferor Bank – On amalgamation designated as Scale-III officer – Charge sheet issued by AGM, a Scale-V officer – Appellant never challenging his placement in Scale III junior to AGM in transferee Bank – AGM, a Scale-V officer, being Disciplinary authority for scale III officers – Competent to issue charge sheet to appellant – No infirmity. (Para 11, 17, 23)

       (c) Service law – Disciplinary proceeding – Transferor Bank asking explanation from appellant with regard to his irregular conduct – No formal disciplinary initiated before amalgamation – Transferee Bank not precluded from initiating disciplinary proceeding on such conduct. (Para 12, 18, 24)

       (d) Service law – Disciplinary proceedings – Natural justice – Supply of inquiry report to delinquent – Appellant dismissed wef 02-8-1989 – Copy of enquiry report not supplied – There was no necessity of supplying enquiry report prior to Mohd. Ramzan Khan – B. Karunakar holding that punishments imposed prior to Mohd. Ramzan Khan without supply of enquiry report would not be disturbed – Instantly, appellant dismissed before Mohd. Ramzan Khan not entitled to copy of enquiry report – Moreover appellant never challenging merits of enquiry or punishment at any stage meaning thereby he was not prejudiced by non-supply of enquiry report – Later appellant was supplied with enquiry report but he did not raise any issue on allegations or enquiry – Proceeding and punishment not vitiated. (Para 13, 14, 19)

       (1991) 1 SCC 588; (1993) 4 SCC 727 – Relied upon

       (e) Service law – Disciplinary proceeding – Second show-cause notice – Appellant dismissed in August 1989 – No requirement of second show cause notice at that time – Punishment not vitiated. (Para 20)

       (f) Service law – Disciplinary proceeding against employees of transferor bank – Transferee bank, held, entitled to look into any financial irregularity committed by the employees of the transferor bank. (Para 21, 26, 27, 28)

       (1992) 2 SCC 484 – Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

       Gambhir was working as an Assistant General Manager in the Hindustan Commercial Bank Limited. This bank was amalgamated with the Punjab National Bank on 19th December, 1986. On amalgamation, the services of 28 or 29 officials of the Hindustan Commercial Bank including Gambhir were not taken over by the Punjab National Bank.

       Gambhir, while he was working with the Hindustan Commercial Bank, was issued a charge-sheet in 1983 alleging irregularities in sanctioning of loans to the customers of the bank and a failure to take follow up steps. Gambhir was administered a ‘caution’. Thereafter in 1986 another set of allegations were made against Gambhir but no final decision was taken by the Hindustan Commercial Bank until its amalgamation with the PNB.

       The PNB issued a charge-sheet to Gambhir on 28th November, 1987 in which it was alleged that he had deliberately flouted the bank lending norms and accommodated some parties unauthorisedly thereby putting huge funds of the bank at stake.

       Gambhir preferred a writ petition in the Calcutta High Court challenging the charge-sheet issued to him and the inquiry proceedings.

       During pendency of the writ petition Gambhir was dismissed from service with effect from 2nd August, 1989.

       The writ petition was dismissed.

       Finding of the Court:

       No interference is warranted.

       Result: Appeal dismissed.