Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital)
M.R. Shah, B.V. Nagarathna, JJ.
Umesh Kumar Pahwa – Appellant
Versus
The Board of Directors Uttarakhand Gramin Bank & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos. 796-799 of 2022
Decided on : 11-02-2022
Service Law – Removal – Banking service – There were specific allegations of bias against Chairman and Bank right from initiation of departmental proceedings made by appellant – There is no financial loss caused to Bank – Appellant had worked for 28 years and during those 28 years there are no allegations against him – Punishment of removal for charges proved and misconduct established, is too harsh and disproportionate – However, considering fact that it can be said to be a case of loss of confidence in employee by the Bank, we deem it just and proper to substitute punishment from that of removal of service to that of compulsory retirement – High Court is justified in holding that in limited jurisdiction available to High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of Constitution of India, High Court is not required to reappreciate evidence and/or interfere with findings recorded by inquiry officer accepted by disciplinary authority – However, order of removal of service can be said to be disproportionate to charges and misconduct held to be proved – Impugned Judgment and Order passed by High Court modified to the extent substituting punishment from that of removal of service to that of compulsory retirement – Appellant shall be entitled to all benefits which may be available to him by converting punishment from that of removal of service to that of compulsory retirement – Impugned judgment and order set aside and matter remitted to High Court to decide the same afresh in accordance with law and on its own merits. (Paras 3.1, 3.2, 4, 5 and 6)
Facts of the case:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order dated 17.07.2018 passed by High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Writ Petition (S/B) No.4 of 2013 and Writ Petition (S/B) No.267 of 2013 as well as the order passed in the review applications dismissing same vide common order dated 08.01.2020, the employee original writ petitioner has preferred the present appeals.
Findings of Court:
In earlier round of litigation being Writ Petition (S/B) No.65 of 2012, the High Court had directed the Bank to consider his case for promotion considering his ACR for the Financial Years 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. Said exercise was required to be done by Bank. Therefore, so far as the Writ Petition (S/B) No.267 of 2013 is concerned, the same is required to be remanded to High Court to decide the same afresh in accordance with law and on its own merits.
Result : Appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT
M. R. Shah, J.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common judgment and order dated 17.07.2018 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 4 of 2013 and Writ Petition (S/B) No. 267 of 2013 as well as the order passed in the review applications dismissing the same vide common order dated 08.01.2020, the employee - the original writ petitioner has preferred the present appeals.
2. That the appellant herein was serving as a Branch Officer at Pratap Pur Branch of the Respondent - Bank. He has put in 28 years' of service. While he was serving at Pratap Pur Branch during the period 27.06.2008 to 21.11.2008, a complaint was made against the appellant by one borrower of the Bank namely Karamjeet Singh on 17.09.2008 alleging that the appellant had sanctioned the limit of loan of Rs. 1,50,000/- which was later on reduced to Rs. 75,000/-. Four other persons also made the complaint against the appellant. On receiving the complaint against the appellant - the Chairman of the Bank transferred him to another branch of the Bank, during pendency of the inquiry pertaining to aforesaid complaints. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant seeking his explanation. The appellant replied to the said show cause notice stating therein that the allegations in the complaint are baseless, frivolous and fabricated. He also made allegations of malice and bias against the Chairman of the Bank. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the appellant. A charge-sheet was issued to him and following charges were framed:
2. He committed serious violations of duty and breach of trust reposed in him by the Bank and misused his official position.
3. In the performance of his official duties and in exercise of powers conferred on him, he unauthorizedly exceeded his authority / powers and did not report the same for / or obtained approval / confirmation from higher authorities for such excessive actions.
4. He flouted instructions of the higher authorities.
5. He adopted such steps and took such actions as were derogatory, prejudicial and detrimental to the interest of the bank.
6. He misrepresented and suppressed material facts from higher authorities.
7. He knowingly and willfully violated Bank's rules and established procedures for his personal gains.
8. Due to his acts, bank is likely to suffer financial losses.
9. He committed such acts which tarnished the image of the Bank.
10. He did acts unbecoming of an officer of the Bank"
2.1 That the Bank decided to initiate an inquiry for a major punishment. The appellant participated in the departmental inquiry. The complainant, Karamjeet Singh was also examined during the inquiry. The inquiry officer held the charges No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10 as proved. On receipt of the inquiry report the appellant submitted his reply and contended that the findings of the Inquiry Officer are perverse to the material placed on record and against the principle of natural justice. He also made allegations of bias against the Chairman of the Bank. Thereafter after considering the inquiry report and giving opportunity to the appellant, the disciplinary authority/Chairman of the Bank passed an order of removal of the appellant from service. The appellant preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority and the Appellant Authority dismissed the appeal vide order dated 20.12.2011. Feeling aggrieved against the order of removal from service, the appellant preferred the present writ petition before the High Court being Writ Petition (S/B) No.4 of 2013.
2.2 During the pendency of Writ Petition (S/B) No. 4 of 2013 the appellant also preferred another Writ Petition No. 267 of 2013 seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the Bank to grant promotion from Scale II to Scale III from the date when those junior to h
Punishment of removal from service is a harsh punishment.
Disciplinary proceedings against bank employees must adhere to established regulations, and decisions upheld by the appellate authority are not subject to re-evaluation by the High Court unless deeme....
(1) Merely because a show cause notice is issued by indicating proposed punishment it cannot be said that disciplinary authority has taken a decision.(2) If an officer/employee of bank is allowed to ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the dismissal of an employee must be proportionate to the misconduct, and in this case, the court found the dismissal to be disproportionate a....
Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, High Court shall not reappreciate evidence and interfere with conclusions of inquiry and cannot go into adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence ....
Disciplinary action in banking requires adherence to high standards of integrity, and loss of confidence justifies severe penalties, including removal from service.
The jurisdiction of the High Court on the proportionality of the order of departmental authority is limited, and courts would not ordinarily interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed upon a de....
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
