Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.
NARESH CHANDRA BHARDWAJ – APPELLANT
Versus
BANK OF INDIA & ORS. – RESPONDENTS
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4037 of 2019 [Arising Out of SLP(C) No. 16555 of 2018]
Decided on : 22-04-2019
(B) Service Law – Punishment – Discrimination – Removal from Banking service – Appellant was sanctioning authority in three loans while he was recommending authority in two loans which became NPAs – No mala fide was proved – There is no difference in conduct of three officers as would justify differentiation in punishment – Once there is no financial difference and role is practically identical, it is difficult to appreciate respondents hesitated themselves to convert punishment inflicted on appellant from one of removal from service which shall not be disqualification for future employment” to compulsory retirement – Only aspect is nature of punishment which appears to tar appellant more than other two officers without any financial implication for the respondent-Bank – Court inclined to accept plea of appellant to convert his punishment in terms to one of compulsory retirement. (Paras 10, 11, 14, 15 and 16)
Facts of Case:
Procedural abnormalities were found in sanctioning of loans which were likely to cause loss to Bank of Rs.70.32 lakh. In pursuance of disciplinary proceedings initiated appellant was visited with major penalty of removal from service which shall not be disqualification for future employment upon appellant. Endeavour of appellant to assail proceedings visiting him with these adverse consequences have throughout been unsuccessful including vide impugned order.
Findings of Court:
It is difficult for us to accept that there is any difference in conduct of three officers as would justify this differentiation in punishment. Most important fact in this behalf to notice is that as per counter affidavit submitted by respondents, in their own wisdom they have agreed to grant compassionate allowance to appellant, which is 2/3rd of full pension as would be payable to him had punishment of removal from service not been imposed on him.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J.
Leave granted.
2. The appellant was employed with respondent No.1/Bank of India (for short 'Bank') as Scale II Officer when he sanctioned three loans while posted at the Lal Bangla Branch of the Bank at Kanpur. The appellant was also the recommending authority for two loans at Harsh Nagar Branch, once again, at Kanpur. These loans were ultimately classified as Non-Performing Assets ('NPAs') and the process of granting these loans was scrutinised by the Bank when various procedural abnormalities were found, which were likely to cause a loss to the Bank of Rs. 70.32 lakh.
3. In pursuance of the disciplinary proceedings initiated the appellant was visited with the major penalty of removal from service which shall not be disqualification for future employment upon the appellant. The endeavour of the appellant to assail the proceedings visiting him with these adverse consequences have throughout been unsuccessful including vide impugned order dated 25.10.2017.
4. On 4.7.2018 the only aspect which persuaded this Court to issue notice was with respect to the quantum of penalty. This was on the basis of the submission advanced by learned counsel for the appellant that there were two other cases of officers, one Mr. R.K. Mishra and other Mr. V.K. Srivastava where also similar losses had been caused on account of the same party and they had been visited with the punishment of compulsory retirement. In effect the appellant sought that on parity he should be also visited only with the punishment of compulsory retirement.
5. On the respondents entering appearance, learned counsel for the respondent sought to obtain instructions whether the punishment could be so altered to compulsory retirement on parity with the other two delinquent employees. A counter affidavit has been filed in this behalf which opposes the request made on behalf of the appellant. That is the limited contour of controversy we have to examine in the present case.
6. It is trite to say that the domain of the courts on the issue of quantum of punishment is very limited. It is the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority, which decides the nature of punishment keeping in mind the seriousness of the misconduct committed. This would not imply that if the punishment is so disproportionate that it shocks the conscience of the court the courts are denuded of the authority to interfere with the same. Normally even in such cases it may be appropriate to remit the matter back for consideration by the disciplinary/appellate authority. However, one other cause for interference can be where the plea raised is of parity in punishment but then the pre-requisite would be that the parity has to be in the nature of charges made and held against the delinquent employee and the conduct of the employee post the incident. It is the latter aspect which is sought to be advanced by learned counsel for the appellant by relying upon the judgment in Rajendra Yadav v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., (2013) 3 SCC 73 On this very aspect learned counsel for the respondents drew out attention to a subsequent judgment in Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank (Now Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank) & Anr. v. Rajendra Singh, (2013) 12 SCC 372 which had taken note of the earlier judgment referred to aforesaid.
7. There is really no difference in the proposition, which is sought to be propounded except that in the latter judgment the principles have been succinctly summarised in the last paragraph of the judgment, which read as under:
"19. The principles discussed above can be summed up and summarized as follows:
19.1. When charge(s) of misconduct is proved in an enquiry the quantum of punishment to be imposed in a particular case is essentially the domain of the departmental authorities.
19.2. The Courts cannot assume the function of disciplinary/departmental authorities and to decide the quantum of punishment and nature of penalty to be awarded, as this function is exclusively with
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
