SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2013 Supreme(Del) 1582

High Court of Delhi
BADAR DURREZ AHMED & VIBHU BAKHRU, JJ.
State Bank of India
Versus
P.N. Saluja
LPA No. 747 of 2012 & CM No. 19152 of 2012
Decided On : 26-11-2013

Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant:Sudhir Nandrajog, Sr. Adv. with Rajiv Kapur, Ms. Vatsala Rai, Advocates.
For the Respondent: In person

The punishment of removal from service is disproportionate to the misconduct of misbehaviour and abuse of language, where the employee has a clean record of service for 16 years and the misconduct is not of a serious nature.

Headnote:

BANKS - DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS - REMOVAL FROM SERVICE - CHARGES - MISCONDUCT - MISBEHAVIOUR - ABUSE OF LANGUAGE - CLAIMING ALLOWANCES - UNAUTHORISED CREDIT - TRAVELLING EXPENSES - LEAVE FARE CONCESSION - INQUIRY - EVIDENCE - APPRECIATION - JUDICIAL REVIEW - SCOPE - PROPORTIONALITY OF PUNISHMENT - REINSTATEMENT - BACK WAGES.

Fact of the Case:

The respondent, an employee of the appellant bank, was removed from service on account of alleged misconduct, including misbehaviour, abuse of language, claiming allowances, unauthorised credit, travelling expenses, and leave fare concession. The respondent challenged the removal order by filing a writ petition, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge. The appellant bank filed an appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the charges against the respondent were not sustainable, except for the charges of misbehaviour and abuse of language. However, the Court found that the punishment of removal from service was disproportionate to the misconduct and remanded the matter to the Disciplinary Authority to consider the question of punishment afresh.

Issues: 1. Whether the charges against the respondent were sustainable? 2. Whether the punishment of removal from service was proportionate to the misconduct?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the charges against the respondent, except for the charges of misbehaviour and abuse of language, were not sustainable. The Court found that the evidence against the respondent was insufficient to prove the charges of misbehaviour and abuse of language, and that the Disciplinary Authority had erred in not considering the defence of the respondent. 2. The Court held that the punishment of removal from service was disproportionate to the misconduct. The Court found that the respondent had a clean record of service for 16 years and that the misconduct was not of a serious nature. The Court also found that the Disciplinary Authority had not considered the mitigating circumstances in the case.

Final Decision: The Court allowed the appeal in part, set aside the order of the learned Single Judge, and remanded the matter to the Disciplinary Authority to consider the question of punishment afresh.

Judgment :

Vibhu Bakhru, J.

1. The appellant has preferred the present appeal impugning the order dated 10.09.2012 passed by a learned Single Judge of this court in WP (C) No.1300/1988 (hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”) whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the said writ petition filed by the respondent and set aside the order dated 25.05.2011 passed by the Appellate Committee of the appellant. The said Appellate Committee had by the order dated 25.05.2011 rejected the appeal preferred by the respondent against his removal from service of the appellant bank on account of his alleged misconduct.

2. The facts relevant for examining the controversy in the present appeal are briefly stated as under.

3. The Respondent was employed with the appellant and was posted as a clerk in Varanasi in the year 1967. In 1970, the respondent was transferred to Kanpur and in 1971 was again transferred to Delhi. In the year 1977, the respondent was promoted as an Officer and in September 1980, the respondent was transferred to Firozpur Jhirka where he did not join. The appellant issued a fresh transfer order transferring him to Gurgaon where the respondent joined in November 1980. The respondent was again transferred to Palwal sometime in 1981 and finally he was transferred to Faridabad in the year 1982.

4. On 08.06.1983, the respondent went to the Regional office of the appellant in Delhi and met the Regional Manager to inquire about the increment which was long overdue. In that meeting, the respondent allegedly misbehaved with the Regional Manager. The respondent was suspended from service pending an enquiry relating to the incident of 08.06.1983.

5. On 26.10.1983, the respondent was served with a charge-sheet whereby nine charges of misconduct were leveled against the respondent. Whereas seven charges related to other allegations including making wrongful claims to certain allowances, the other two articles of charge related to the incident of 08.06.1983. Essentially, the charges leveled against the respondent were indecent behavior within the premises of the bank, leaving the station of posting without obtaining prior permission and for claiming Transfer Allowance and Mid-Academic Transfer Allowance to which the respondent was allegedly not entitled. The relevant content of the charges leveled against the respondent are as under:-

“1. He, while posted at Mehrauli Road (Gurgaon), Palwal and Sarai Khwaja (Faridabad) branches, left the stations of his postings and commuted daily from Delhi without obtaining prior permission of the Controlling Authority.

2. He submitted a false T.A. Bill for Rs 715/- on account of his transfer from Connaught Circus New Delhi to Mehrauli Road (Gurgaon) Branch wherein he claimed Rs. 500/- by way of incidental charges (packing, cartage etc.) when he was not entitled to it as he never shifted his residence/luggage to Gurgaon and daily commuted from Delhi.

3. He submitted a Mid-Academic Transfer Allowance bill for Rs. 740/- for the period 19th September 1980 to 30th April 1981 by concealing the fact of his having not shifted his residence to Gurgaon. Incidentally, he was relieved of his duties from Connaught Circus (New Delhi) Branch as at the close of business on the 18th September, 1980 on transfer to Firozepur Jhirka Branch and remained unauthorisedly absent from duty without reporting thereat. Subsequently, his transfer order was modified for Mehrauli Road, Gurgaon Branch and he reported thereat on the 27th November, 1980.

4. He while posted at Palwal Branch, again falsely claimed a sum of Rs.1000/- as Mid Academic Transfer Allowance for the period July 1981 to April 1982 when he was not entitled to it as his children were already studying in Delhi while he was transferred from Mehrauli Road(Gurgaon) to Palwal Branch and he never shifted his residence to Palwal.

5. While posted at Palwal Branch, he took an advance of Rs 1500/- on 28.5.1982 for visiting Kanpur under Home Travel Concession
















































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top