Back
THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
VIJAY BISHNOI, N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR
K. Suanthang S/o Lt. Kamkhongin – Appellant
Versus
State Bank Of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
N. Unni Krishnan Nair, J.
Heard Mr. S. Banik, and Mr. G. Khandalia, learned counsels, appearing on behalf of the appellant. Also heard Mr. H. Buragohain, learned standing counsel, State Bank of India(SBI), appearing on behalf of all the respondents.
2. The present intra-Court appeal has been instituted by the appellant, herein, assailing the judgment & order, dated 21.01.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(c)302/2014, dismissing the same by refusing to interfere with the order of penalty of “Removal from Service” as imposed upon the appellant on conclusion of a disciplinary proceeding so instituted against him.
3. The facts, in brief, requisite for adjudication of the issue arising in the present proceeding, is noticed, as under:
During the tenure of the appellant as the Branch Manager of Lunglei Branch of State Bank of India(SBI), certain allegations having been levelled against him pertaining to the manner of sanction and disbursal of the Housing Loans; a charge sheet came to be issued to him on 08.02.2010, instituting a disciplinary proceeding against him.
In the said charge sheet, dated 08.02.2010;
Disciplinary action in banking requires adherence to high standards of integrity, and loss of confidence justifies severe penalties, including removal from service.
Bank employees must maintain high standards of integrity; misconduct leading to loss of confidence justifies disciplinary penalties.
The court affirmed that an acquittal in a criminal case does not preclude disciplinary action if misconduct is proven in a departmental inquiry.
Non-examination of a complainant in a disciplinary inquiry is not fatal if sufficient evidence supports the charges, and harsh penalties can be justified based on loss of confidence.
The disciplinary authority's decision to remove the employee for financial misconduct was upheld, as the inquiry followed due process and the employee admitted to significant charges.
The punishment imposed must be proportionate and not unduly harsh, and the failure to examine vital witnesses can vitiate the departmental proceeding.
The limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary matters and the need for fairness in treatment throughout the proceedings.
Disciplinary proceedings against a retired bank officer can proceed if initiated prior to retirement, identifying lapses in loan sanctioning as misconduct warranting penalties.
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
