Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. VIJAY BISHNOI, HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM, J.
Central Bank of India, Represented by its Chief General Manager & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Rabin Chandra Sarma - Respondent
WA No. 11 of 2018
Decided On : 06-08-2024
DISMISSAL - EMPLOYMENT DISCIPLINE - Central Bank of India Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976, Regulations 3 and 4 - The court discussed the major penalties outlined in the Central Bank of India regulations, emphasizing that dismissal is the harshest penalty and should be proportionate to the misconduct. The court found the dismissal of the respondent to be shockingly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct, as there was no evidence of pecuniary loss to the bank. The court relied on precedents that stress the need for penalties to be reasonable and not arbitrary, leading to the decision to remand the case for reconsideration of the penalty.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, a Branch Manager at the Bank, faced disciplinary proceedings for multiple charges of misconduct related to loan sanctioning and disbursement. After a departmental inquiry, he was dismissed from service, which he challenged in court, leading to a remand for reconsideration of the penalty.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that while the respondent's conduct raised concerns, there was no evidence of financial loss to the bank. The learned Single Judge's decision to remand the case for a fresh penalty was upheld as reasonable, given the disproportionate nature of the dismissal.
Issues: Whether the penalty of dismissal was proportionate to the misconduct alleged against the respondent and whether the remand for reconsideration of the penalty was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that penalties must be proportionate to the misconduct and that dismissal, being the harshest penalty, requires clear justification, especially in the absence of financial loss to the bank.
Final Decision: The court upheld the remand of the case to the disciplinary authority for reconsideration of the penalty, setting aside the dismissal order, and directed that a new penalty be imposed within one month.
JUDGMENT :
Suman Shyam, J.
This intra court appeal preferred by the Bank is directed against the judgment and order dated 13.07.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in W(C) No.1319/2009 filed by the respondent/writ petitioner assailing the order of penalty of dismissal from service dated 19.11.2007 imposed upon him. By the impugned judgment and order dated 13.07.2017 the learned Single Judge had remanded the matter back to the disciplinary authority for the purpose of taking a fresh decision on the punishment to be imposed upon the respondent/writ petitioner which ought to be proportionate to his misconduct.
2. The facts and circumstances of the case, leading to the filing of this appeal, briefly stated, are that while working as the Branch Manager of Bokulia Branch of the appellant Bank, a disciplinary enquiry was initiated against the respondent/writ petitioner on the basis of memorandum of charge dated 02.03.2007, levelling certain allegations against him. The four charges brought against the writ petitioner on the basis of charge-sheet dated 07.05.2007 are as follows :
Charge No.2 :- Shri Sarma committed serious financial anomalies in sanctioning and disbursing loans in 173 CKCC accounts at the branch jeopardizing the pecuniary interest of the bank when his lending powers were ceased by his higher authority.
Charge No.3 :- Shri Sarma as Branch Manager in order to conceal his misdeeds/financial irregularities in the aforesaid CKCC accounts did not report to his higher authority about such loans through periodical control returns.
Charge No.4 :- Shri Sarma as Branch Manager acted illegally and unauthorisedly in sanctioning and disbursing 173 CKCC loans involving a total sum of Rs.42.05 lacs which amount is presumed to be a pecuniary loss to the bank.”
3. The statement of imputations annexed to the charge-sheet contained the particulars of the allegations supporting the aforesaid charges.
4. The respondent filed his written statement denying the charges brought against him. According to the respondent, he was under a genuine impression that renewal and enhancement in the ‘CKCC’ loan limit, where the borrower had repaid the earlier dues, is not a fresh sanction and hence, his power was not curtailed so as to restrict disbursement of loan. It was also the stand of the respondent that during the relevant time, the Branch was having a strength of only one Branch Manager and only three other staff which was highly inadequate to handle 400 fresh cases of CKCC loan. As such, in order to meet his target he had to discharge his duties under such heavy workload. The respondent had further stated that in all the cases mentioned in the charge-sheet he had obtained land holding certificate, non-encumbrance certificate and valuation certificate from the Assistant Revenue Officer as per the norms of the DLTC. On such ground the respondent had denied of having acted in violation of the orders and instructions of the superior authorities while sanctioning/disbursing the loans.
5. On 02.07.2007, a supplementary charge-sheet, based on further investigation allegedly conducted by the Bank authorities in disbursement of loans under the Bokulia Branch, had been served on the respondent. In the supplementary charge No.1 it was alleged that despite curtailment of his lending power by the Regional Manager, Upper Assam Region, the respondent had sanctioned a demand loan of Rs.35,000/- to Shri Puspa Kalita against security of KVP of total Rs.50,000/- although as per the lending policy, the Branch Manager did not have any power to sanction such loan. Supplementary charge No.2 was to the effect that the respondent had sanctioned similar demand loans to two borrowers viz., Gajendra Saikia and R. B. Saha by jeopardizing the interest of the bank. In supplementary charge No.3 it was alleged that the respondent had sanctioned loan
The principle established is that disciplinary penalties must be proportionate to the misconduct, and dismissal is only justified when there is clear evidence of serious wrongdoing, particularly fina....
Bank officials accused of serious financial misconduct are expected to discharge their duties with utmost integrity and honesty, and the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority cannot be sub....
The court upheld the dismissal of the petitioner for gross misconduct, affirming that disciplinary authorities' findings are not to be interfered with unless perverse or illegal.
Judicial review in disciplinary actions is not an appeal; it ensures fairness and legality without substituting the authority's findings unless they are grossly disproportionate.
Disciplinary action in banking requires adherence to high standards of integrity, and loss of confidence justifies severe penalties, including removal from service.
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
