1. Dismissal from service for misconduct — Non-supply of enquiry report in violation of service regulations — Challenge to penalty order and quantum of back wages. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 9 , 14 , 15 , 19 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 374
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Indira Banerjee, V. Ramasubramanian, JJ.
Allahabad Bank and Others – Appellants
Versus
Avtar Bhushan Bhartiya – Respondent
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 32554 of 2018 with SLP (Civil) No. 9096 of 2019
Decided On : 22-04-2022
Important Points
Failure to supply an enquiry report violates service regulations and natural justice, justifying quashing of dismissal. For managerial employees, full back wages require pleading non-employment. The Court upheld a 50% back-wage award as a balanced remedy considering the length of unemployment and the employee's managerial status.
Subject
Employment - Disciplinary Proceedings and Appeals
Act Referred
ALLAHABAD BANK OFFICER EMPLOYEES DISCIPLINE AND APPEAL REGULATIONS: Reg.17, Reg.9
ALLAHABAD BANK OFFICERS EMPLOYEES CONDUCT REGULATIONS: Reg.3(1)
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.226, Art.136
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT: S.11(a)
ALLAHABAD BANK OFFICERS EMPLOYEES CONDUCT REGULATIONS: Reg.3(1)
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.226, Art.136
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT: S.11(a)
Headnote
Special Leave Petition - Employment Dispute - Allahabad Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 - Regulation 9
Fact of the Case:
The case involves an employment dispute between the Management of Allahabad Bank and a delinquent Officer-employee. The Officer-employee was dismissed from service in 1989 following a departmental enquiry and subsequent appeals. The High Court allowed a writ petition in 2011, directing the Management to supply a copy of the enquiry report and allowing the Officer-employee to file a fresh appeal. The Bank's subsequent petitions for review and special leave were dismissed. The Officer-employee was reinstated with 50% back wages and all consequential benefits, including post-retirement benefits, as he had attained superannuation.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court found the Management at fault for not supplying the enquiry report and failing to comply with the court's orders. The Court balanced the length of the employee's service and the time spent out of employment, limiting back wages to 50%.
Issues: The main issue was the entitlement to back wages and consequential benefits for the Officer-employee following his dismissal from service.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court considered the Allahabad Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976, particularly Regulation 9, which mandates the communication of orders and supply of the enquiry report to the employee. The Court also balanced the length of the employee's service and time spent out of employment in determining the entitlement to back wages.
Final Decision: Both Special Leave Petitions were dismissed, upholding the High Court's decision to reinstate the Officer-employee with 50% back wages and all consequential benefits.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- administrative law
- service law
- practice and procedure
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gautam, AOR Mr. Anant Gautam, Adv. Mr. Nipun Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sachin Singh, Adv. Mr. Rahul Shyam Bhandari, AOR G. Priyadharshni, Adv. Mr. Konark Tyagi, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rahul Shyam Bhandari, AOR G. Priyadharshni, Adv. Mr. Konark Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gautam, AOR Mr. Anant Gautam, Adv. Mr. Nipun Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sachin Singh, Adv.
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gautam, AOR Mr. Anant Gautam, Adv. Mr. Nipun Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sachin Singh, Adv. Mr. Rahul Shyam Bhandari, AOR G. Priyadharshni, Adv. Mr. Konark Tyagi, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rahul Shyam Bhandari, AOR G. Priyadharshni, Adv. Mr. Konark Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gautam, AOR Mr. Anant Gautam, Adv. Mr. Nipun Sharma, Adv. Mr. Sachin Singh, Adv.
Table of Contents
2. Employer disputes entitlement to back wages — Employee seeks full back wages instead of fifty percent based on wrongful termination principles. (Para 1 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 29 , 30 )
3. Employer's failure to supply enquiry report violated regulations — Managerial employees differ from workmen regarding back wages — Lack of pleading on non-employment precludes full back wages. (Para 13 , 15 , 16 , 22 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 30 , 32 , 33 )
4. Entitlement to full back wages requires a specific pleading of non-employment by the employee; managerial service law differs from labour law principles. (Para 30 , 32 , 33 )
5. Special Leave Petitions filed by both the employer and the employee dismissed — High Court order for fifty percent back wages upheld. (Para 28 , 36 , 37 , 38 )
6. What is the legal effect of failing to supply an enquiry report during disciplinary proceedings?
Failure to supply the enquiry report, particularly when mandated by service regulations, constitutes a procedural illegality that can justify quashing the penalty order and the subsequent appellate order. (Para 7 , 19 , 20 , 25 )
7. Are the principles for awarding back wages identical for managerial employees and workmen?
No, courts must apply different yardsticks for managerial category employees compared to workman category employees, maintaining a distinction between the application of service law and labour law. (Para 30 )
8. What is the evidentiary requirement for an employee seeking full back wages after wrongful termination?
The employee must specifically plead or state before the court that they were not gainfully employed or were employed on lesser wages to shift the burden of proof to the employer. (Para 31 , 32 , 33 )
ORDER :
1. Aggrieved by an order of reinstatement with 50% back-wages, but all other consequential benefits in full, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, the Management of the Allahabad Bank has come up with one Special Leave Petition and the delinquent Officer has come up with the other Special Leave Petition.
2. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties.
3. Since one of these Special Leave Petitions is by the Management of the Bank and other SLP is by the delinquent Officer, we shall refer to the parties as "the Bank" and "the Officer-employee".
4. The Officer-employee was first appointed as a Clerk way back in the year 1974. He was promoted to the post of Junior Manager Grade-II in 1982 and to the post of Manager in 1987. In July, 1988 he was issued with a charge memorandum, comprising of 3 articles of charges. A departmental enquiry followed and the Enquiry Officer held the charges proved. After finding that the Report of the Enquiry Officer was not very happily drafted, the disciplinary authority analysed the evidence on record independently and passed an order of penalty of dismissal from service on 31.03.1989.
5. The Officer-employee filed a departmental appeal under Regulation 17 of the Allahabad Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976, contending among others, that the findings of the Enquiry Officer were not even enclosed to the final order of penalty.
6. The appellate authority, by an order dated 28.02.1990 dismissed the appeal, despite recording a finding that the copy of the enquiry report was not enclosed to the final order of penalty. However, the Appellate Authority attempted to overcome this defect by holding that after the Officer-employee filed the statutory appeal, a copy of the enquiry report was sent to his address on 02.06.1989 and that the same returned undelivered.
7. After filing a petition for Review and getting it dismissed, the Officer-employee moved the High Court with a writ petition in W.P.No. 29426 of 1990. After referring to Regulation 9 of the Allahabad Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 which provides for a supply of the copy of the enquiry report, the High Court allowed the writ petition by an order dated 27.04.2011, directing the Management to supply a copy of the enquiry report within one month and giving liberty to the Officer-employee to file a fresh Appeal with a further direction to the appellate authority to decide the appeal expeditiously.
8. The Bank filed a Special Leave Petition (C) CC No. 13418 of 2011 and the same was dismissed by this Court by an Order dated 26.08.2011. The Bank then sought a review before the High Court but the same also got rejected.
9. In an interesting twist, the Bank sent a letter dated 8.05.2012 to the Officer-employee, claiming that the copy of the enquiry report was not traceable and that he will be free to submit a statutory appeal, raising all issues. Aggrieved by the stand so taken, the Officer-employee filed a fresh Writ Petition in W.P No. 1403 of 2013. The said Writ Petition was allowed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, setting aside the order of penalty and directing reinstatement with 50% of the back wages, but with all consequential benefits including post retirement benefits to which he would have been entitled had he not been dismissed from service. This was for the reason that the employee attained superannuation on 28.02.2013. The operative portion of the Order dated 01.10.2018 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad is reproduced as follows:
"... Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed.
The order dated 31.03.1989 whereby the punishment of dismissal has been imposed upon the petitioner is hereby quashed. We also quash the order dated 15.09.2016 rejecting the statutory appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of dismissal.
The petitioner will thus be entitled to be given all consequential benefits, including the post retirement benefit
