Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, SUBHASH CHAND, JJ.
Canara Bank, Govt. of India under taking through its Managing Director – Appellant
Versus
Pravir Sharan, Son of Late Laxmi Kant Sharan – Respondent
L.P.A. No. 27 of 2018
Decided on : 30-01-2023
disciplinary authority - departmental proceeding - Canara Bank Officer Employee’s (Discipline and Appeal) Regulation, 1976 - Regulation 4(h)
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioner, a Senior Manager at Canara Bank, was found guilty of technical fault in sanctioning loans and was initially ordered compulsory retirement, which was later modified to reduction to a lower grade and debarment from promotion for two years. The High Court quashed the orders and remitted the matter to the disciplinary authority for fresh decision on the quantum of punishment.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court found that the punishment of compulsory retirement was excessive and disproportionate, and the subsequent modification was also excessive. The Court held that the writ petitioner was provided with adequate opportunity to defend himself, and the charges against him were serious in nature.
Issues: The primary issue was the legality and propriety of the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and the subsequent modification by the appellate authority. The jurisdiction of the High Court to interfere in the disciplinary proceedings was also raised as an issue.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court can interfere with the quantum of punishment if it is found to be disproportionate to the gravity of the offence. However, the Court must assign reasons for finding the punishment to be shocking to its conscience. The Court should not re-appreciate the evidence or interfere with the conclusions of the enquiry, unless there is a violation of principles of natural justice or the findings are based on no evidence.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the writ petition was dismissed. The High Court's order was found to be unsustainable in the eyes of the law.
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dated 24.11.2017 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 999 of 2011, whereby and whereunder, the order of punishment as contained in Annexure-4 dated 29.09.2007 passed by the original authority; order of appellate authority as contained in Annexure-6 dated 09.04.2010 and; the order of reviewing authority as contained in Annexure-10 dated 31.01.2011, have been quashed and set aside by remitting the matter before the disciplinary authority for taking a decision afresh on the quantum of punishment.
2. The brief facts as per the pleading which require to be enumerated herein read as under:
It is the case of the writ petitioner that considering his past service, he was given out of turn promotion and was posted at the new SSI Branch of Canara Bank, Adityapur, Jamshedpur. He was given target and was directed to take immediate steps to achieve the target vide letter as contained in Ref. No. PRD/AFPS/76/2004-05 RNP dated 10.03.2005 issued by the Regional Office, under the signature of Assistant General Manager. According to the writ petitioner, he has successfully achieved the target given by the Regional Office in which the Management of Canara Bank congratulated him as would be evident from the appreciation letter issued by the Management.
It is the further case of the writ petitioner that a regular inspection of Adityapur Branch was made and in the said inspection, certain technical lapses were found and accordingly, the writ petitioner was asked to explain and reply to the same which was submitted by the writ petitioner vide his explanation dated 08.03.2006. The Management having not been satisfied with the explanation had put the writ petitioner under suspension and a chargesheet was issued to him vide chargesheet dated 03.05.2006. The writ petitioner has submitted his explanation to the charges levelled against him but the disciplinary authority having not been satisfied with the explanation has decided to initiate a departmental proceeding. An enquiry officer was appointed and the writ petitioner has fully participated in the departmental proceeding and placed his defence to the charges levelled against him.
The enquiry officer, after considering the evidences and documents, and other material on record found the writ petitioner not guilty of most of the charges but found him guilty of committing technical fault in sanctioning the loan to the borrowers in order to achieve the target given by the Bank.
The disciplinary authority, after receipt of the copy of the enquiry report, has issued second show cause notice which had been responded by the writ petitioner. The said explanation having not been found to be satisfactory, the order of punishment for compulsory retirement in view of the provision under Regulation 4(h) of the Canara Bank Officer Employee’s (Discipline and Appeal) Regulation, 1976 has been passed on 29.09.2007.
The writ petitioner being aggrieved with the said order, has challenged the same before this Court by filing writ petitioner being W.P.(S) No. 3845 of 2008. The writ petitioner, however, during pendency of the aforesaid writ petition has preferred departmental appeal and the co-ordinate learned Single Judge of this Court while disposing of the aforesaid writ petition on 12.11.2009 has directed the appellate authority to dispose of the appeal within a period of four months from the date of presentation of the order.
The appellate authority, in compliance of the aforesaid order, has modified the order of punishment of compulsory retirement to the order of reduction to a lower grade, i.e., MMG Scale-III to JMG Scale-I and basic pay scale has been fixed at Rs. 18,240/- and further punishment has been imposed by debarring him from promotion for a period of two years from
The High Court can interfere with the quantum of punishment if it is found to be disproportionate to the gravity of the offence, but must assign reasons for finding the punishment to be shocking to i....
The court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings, highlighting the discretionary power of the disciplinary authority to impose appropriate punishment and the impo....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that courts can only interfere with disciplinary proceedings if there are violations of principles of natural justice or statutory regulations, and....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of interference in disciplinary proceedings, emphasizing the need for evidence-based findings and the principles of proportionali....
A disciplinary authority must provide an opportunity for hearing when it disagrees with an enquiry officer's findings, and any punishment not prescribed by statutory rules is without jurisdiction.
Judicial review in disciplinary matters is limited; courts cannot reassess evidence or interfere unless findings are arbitrary or unsupported by evidence.
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....
The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to principles of natural justice in disciplinary inquiries, asserting that findings must be supported by adequate evidence and fair procedures.
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
