Back
2006(3) JLJ 176
(SUPREME COURT)
S.B. Sinha and P.P. Naolekar, JJ.
P.D. Agrawal v. State Bank of India and others
Civil Appeal No. 7686 of 2004 : against the order of M.P. High Court
passed in LPA No. 363 of 1988;
Decided on 28.4.2006.
The appellant herein was working as a Junior Manager, Grade I in a branch office of the 1st respondent-Bank herein. On or about 29.9.1984 he is said to have misbehaved with the Regional Manager of the Bank. He was placed• under suspension. Disciplinary proceedings were also initiated against him on 26.11.1984. He was found guilty of the misconduct alleged against him. On earlier occasion also he was found guilty for mis-behaviour wherefor he had been censured. He was thereafter allowed to join his duties. The appellant, however, despite imposition of the said penalties on him, started misbehaving with the senior officers again as also with the customers by using abusive language and passing derogatory remarks during the period 8.9.1986 to 27.9.1986. During the said period, it may be mentioned, he was posted in different branches. A disciplinary proceeding was started against him. [Para 1
One Shri R.K. Sharma, Branch Manager, having been abused and threatened to be hit by shoes by the appellant, lodged two first information reports (FIR) against the appellant pursuant whereto two cases under section 353 of the Indian Penal Code were initiated in respect of the incidents which took place on 16.10.1986 and 23.10.1986. He was placed under suspension by an order dated 11.11.1986 by the Disciplinary Authority. [Para 2
He was, however, acquitted of the charges levelled against him in the criminal proceedings by a learned Judicial Magistrate by a judgment dated 7.5.1988 inter alia on the ground that the same could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
The disciplinary authority thereafter issued a charge-sheet against him for his purported misbehaviour during the period 8.9.1986 to 27.9.1986 to which we have referred to hereinbefore. [Paras 3 & 4
The appellant was found guilty of all the charges except the charge No.2.
The disciplinary authority, however, diferred with the findings of the Inquiry Officer as regards the said charge No.2 and recommended for his dismissal from services to the appointing authority. [Paras 5 & 6
The appointing authority ... imposed upon the appellant a punishment of removal from service .....The appellant herein thereafter preferred an appeal before the appellate authority ......The said appeal, upon consideration of the contentions raised by the appellant herein, was dismissed by the appellate authority..... He filed a writ petition questioning the legality of the said order, which was dismissed. A letters patent appeal preferred by the appellant thereagainst was also dismissed by a reasoned order. [Paras 7 to 10
Held : A verbal abuse may entail imposition of punishment of dismissal from service. [Para 54
The jurisdiction of this Court to interfere with the quantum of punishment, it is well known, is limited. While exercising the said jurisdiction, the Court, only in very exceptional cases, interfere therewith. 1960(1) LLJ SC 518, JT 2005(2) SC 583, JT 2006(2) SC 624 and JT 2006(4) SC 68 relied on. Judgment of High Court affirmed. [Paras 56 & 57
(2) Specific Relief Act, 1963 -- S. 14(1)(b) -- in contractual services, service of employee can be terminated at sweet will of employer -- employee can file a suit for damages only -- position may be different when misconduct is condoned. AIR 1925 Cal. 87 and AIR 1941 Nag. 125 approved. [Paras 20, 22 & 23
(3) Civil Servant -- misconduct -- condonation by employer -- employer must have express or implied knowledge of misconduct -- when such conduct is not required to be considered under service rules but promotion is to be granted on seniority alone, question of condonation would not arise. 1997(2) JLJ 375 (SC) discussed. [Para 25
(4) Civil Servant -- delay in departmental enquiry -- not sufficient to set it aside if no prejudice is shown -- point should be raised at initial stage. 1990 JLJ 319 (SC), (1995)2 SCC 570 and 1999 SCC (L&S) 646 relied on. [Paras 26 to 29
(5) Natural Justice -- principles of -- cannot be put in straight jacket formula -- it has separate facts -- mere technical infringement not enough in absence of real prejudice. 1999 SCC (L&S) 646, JT 2005(8) SC 425, (2003)4 SCC 557, (1998)7 SCC 84, JT 2006(4) SC 376, (1980)4 SCC 379, (1996)3 SCC 364, 1996 JLJ 758 (SC), (2005)5 SCC 337, JT 2006(1) SC 19, JT 2006(1) SC 331, (1985)2 Supp. SCR 131 and (1996)3 SCC 364 discussed. [Paras 30 to 39
(6) Civil Servant -- departmental enquiry -- found guilty of many charges -- same charges not liable to be interfered with by High Court -- case cannot be remitted to Governor for reconsideration. (1963) 1 Supp. SCR 648 relied on. [Para 49
¼1½ flfoy lsok && Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad ¼i;Zos{k.k deZpkfjo`an½ lsok fu;e] 1975 && fu- 49¼N½] 50¼1½(i)] 50¼3½(iii)] 32¼1½] 32¼4½ rFkk 32¼5½ && cSad deZpkjh cSad ds T;s"B vf/kdkfj;ksa rFkk xzkgdksa ls nqO;Zogkj djus dk vH;Lr && naM lafgrk dh /kkjk 353] 448 rFkk 506 ds v/khu vijk/kksa ds fy, vfHk;ksftr Hkh && izFke tk¡p esa ifjfuank dk xkS.k naM vf/kjksfir && ijorhZ tk¡p esa lsokP;qfr mfpr vkSj oS/k gS && naM esa gLr{ksi vuqKs; ughaA
,rfLeu~ vihykFkhZ ,rfLeu~ izFke izR;FkhZ cSad ds ‘kk[kk dk;kZy; esa dfu"B izca/kd Js.kh ds :i esa dk;Zjr FkkA 29-9-1984 dks ;k mlds vklikl mlds }kjk cSad ds {ks=h; izca/kd ls nqO;Zogkj fd;k tkuk dfFkr gSA mls fuyafcr dj fn;k x;kA 26-11-1984 dks mlds fo:) vuq‘kklfud dk;Zokgh Hkh vkjaHk dj nh xbZA og mlds fo:) vfHkdfFkr vopkj dk nks"kh fu"df"kZr fd;k x;kA iwoZrj volj ij Hkh og nqO;Zogkj dk nks"kh ik;k x;k Fkk ftlds fy, mldh ifjfuank dh xbZ FkhA rRi‘pkr~ mls dke ij okil vkus fn;k x;k FkkA rFkkfi] ml ij mDr ‘kkfLr;k¡ vf/kjksfir fd, tkus ds ckotwn vihykFkhZ xkyh&xykSp dh Hkk"kk iz;qDr dj vkSj vuknjlwpd fVIif.k;k¡ dj 8-9-1986 ls 27-9-1986 dh vof/k ds nkSjku T;s"B vf/kdkfj;ksa ds lkFk xzkgdksa ls Hkh fQj nqO;Zogkj djus yxkA mYys[kuh; gs fd mDr vof/k ds nkSjku og fofHkUu ‘kk[kkvksa esa rSukr jgkA mlds fo:) vuq‘kklfud dk;Zokgh vkjaHk dh xbZA ¼iSjk 1
‘kk[kk izca/kd Jh vkj-ds- ‘kekZ us] vihykFkhZ }kjk xkyh&xykSp fd, tkus vkSj twrksa }kjk ekjus dh /kedh fn, tkus ij vihykFkhZ ds fo:) nks izFke bfÙkyk fjiksVsZa nkf[ky dha ftlds ifj.kkeLo:i 16-10-1986 vkSj 23-10-1986 dks ?kVh ?kVukvksa ds laca/k esa Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk dh /kkjk 353 ds v/khu nks ekeys vkjaHk fd, x,A vuq‘kklfud izkf/kdkjh us vkns‘k fnukad 11-11-1986 }kjk mls fuyafcr dj fn;kA ¼iSjk 2
rFkkfi nkafMd dk;Zokgh esa ml ij yxk, x, vkjksiksa ls mls fo}ku U;kf;d eftLVªsV us fu.kZ; fnukad 7-5-1988 }kjk vU; ckrksa ds lkFk bl vk/kkj ij nks"keqDr dj fn;k fd og ;qfDr;qDr lansg ls ijs lkfcr ugha fd, tk ldsA
rRi‘pkr~ vuq‘kklfud izkf/kdkjh us 8-9-1986 ls 27-9-1986 dh vof/k ds nkSjku mlds rkRifoZr nqO;Zogkj ds fy, ftldk geus ,rfLeu~iwoZ funsZ‘k fd;k gS] mlds fo:) vkjksii= tkjh fd;kA ¼iSjk 3 ,oa 4
vihykFkhZ vkjksi Ø-2 ds vfrfjDr lHkh vkjksiksa dk nks"kh fu"df"kZr fd;k x;kA
rFkkfi] vuq‘kklfud izkf/kdkjh us mDr vkjksi Ø-2 ds ckjs esa tk¡p vf/kdkjh ds fu"d"kZ ls erHksn izdV fd;k vkSj fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh ls mls lsok ls gVkus dh flQkfj‘k dhA ¼iSjk 5 ,oa 6
fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh us --- vihykFkhZ ij lsok ls gVk, tkus dk naM vf/kjksfir fd;kA ---- rRi‘pkr~ ,rfLeu~ vihykFkhZ us vihy izkf/kdkjh ds le{k vihy izLrqr dhA ----- ,rfLeu~ vihykFkhZ }kjk fd, x, ladFkuksa ij fopkj fd, tkus ds i‘pkr~ vihy izkf/kdkjh }kjk mDr vihy [kkfjt dj nh xbZA ---- mDr vkns‘k dh oS/krk ij iz‘ufpg~u yxkrs gq, mlus fjV ;kfpdk Qkby dh tks [kkfjt dj nh xbZA vihykFkhZ }kjk mlds fo:) dh xbZ ySVlZ isVsaV vihy Hkh ldkj.k vkns‘k }kjk [kkfjt dj nh xbZA ¼iSjk 7 ls 10
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % ekSf[kd xkyh&xykSp ds fy, lsokP;qfr dk naM vf/kjksfir fd;k tk ldrk gSA ¼iSjk 54
;g lqfofnr gS fd naM ds ifjek.k esa gLr{ksi djus dh bl U;k;ky; dh vf/kdkfjrk lhfer gSA mDr vf/kdkfjrk iz;qDr djrs le; U;k;ky; cgqr gh vkiokfnd ekeys esa gh mlesa gLr{ksi djrk gSA 1960¼1½ ,y ,y ts ,l lh 518] ts Vh 2005¼2½ ,l lh 583] ts Vh 2006¼2½ ,l lh 624 rFkk ts Vh 2006¼4½ ,l lh 68 voyafcrA mPp U;k;ky; dk fu.kZ; vfHkiq"VA ¼iSjk 56 ,oa 57
¼2½ fofufnZ"V vuqrks"k vf/kfu;e] 1963 && /kkjk 14¼1½¼[k½ && lafonkRed lsok esa deZpkjh dh lsok fu;kstd dh tc Hkh bPNk gks] lekIr dh tk ldrh gS && deZpkjh dsoy uqdlkuh ds fy, okn Qkby dj ldrk gS && vopkj ekQ fd;k x;k gks rc fLFkfr fHkUu gks ldrh gSA , vkb vkj 1925 dy- 87 rFkk , vkb vkj 1941 ukx- 125 vuqeksfnrA ¼iSjk 20] 22 ,oa 23
¼3½ flfoy lsod && vopkj && fu;kstd }kjk ekQh && fu;kstd dks vopk dh izR;{k ;k ijks{k tkudkjh gksuk vko‘;d && tc ,sls vopkj ij fopkj fd;k tkuk lsok fu;eksa ds v/khu visf{kr ugha vfirq izksUufr dsoy T;s"Brk ds vk/kkj ij iznku dh tkuk gks rc ekQh dk iz‘u ugha mBrkA 1997¼2½ ts ,y ts 375 ¼mPpre U;k-½ foosfprA ¼iSjk 25
¼4½ flfoy lsod && foHkkxh; tk¡p esa foys[k && mls vikLr djus ds fy, i;kZIr ugha ;fn izfrdwy izHkko ugha n‘kkZ;k tk, && iz‘u izkjafHkd izØe ij mBk;k tkuk pkfg,A 1990 ts ,y ts 319 ¼mPpre U;k-½] ¼1995½2 ,l lh lh 570 rFkk 1999 ,l lh lh ¼,y ,aM ,l½ 646 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 26 ls 29
¼5½ uSlfxZd U;k; && ds fl)kar && dBksj lw= ugha cuk;k tk ldrk && mlds fHkUu&fHkUu igyw gSa && okLrfod izfrdwy izHkko ds vHkko esa dsoy rduhdh vfrya?ku i;kZIr ughaA 1999 ,l lh ¼,y ,aM ,l½ 646] ts Vh 2005¼8½ ,l lh 425] ¼2003½4 ,l lh lh 557] ¼1998½7 ,l lh lh 84] ts Vh ¼2006½4 ,l lh 376] ¼1980½4 ,l lh lh 379] ¼1996½3 ,l lh lh 364] 1996 ts ,y ts 758 ¼mPpre U;k-½] ¼2005½5 ,l lh lh 337] ts Vh ¼2006½1 ,l lh lh 19] ts Vh ¼2006½1 ,l lh 331] ¼1985½2 lIyh- ,l lh vkj 131 rFkk ¼1996½3 ,l lh lh 364 foosfprA ¼iSjk 30 ls 39
¼6½ flfoy lsod && foHkkxh; tk¡p && vusd vkjksiksa dk nks"kh fu"df"kZr && dqN vkjksi mPp U;k;ky; }kjk gLr{ksi ;ksX; ugha && iqufoZpkj ds fy, ekeyk jkT;iky dks izsf"kr ugha fd;k tk ldrkA ¼1963½1 lIyh- ,l lh vkj 648 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 49
Sinha, J. -- 1. The appellant herein was working as a Junior Manager, Grade I in a branch office of the 1st respondent-Bank herein. On or about 29.9.1984 he is said to have misbehaved with the Regional Manager of the Bank. He was placed under suspension. Disciplinary proceedings were also initiated against him on 26.11.1984. He was found guilty of the misconduct alleged against him. On earlier occasion also he was found guilty for misbehaviour wherefor he had been censured. He was thereafter allowed to join his duties. The appellant, however, despite imposition of the said penalties on him, started misbehaving with the senior officers again as also with the customers by using abusive language and passing derogatory remarks during the period 8.9.1986 to 27.9.1986. During the said period, it may be mentioned, he was posted in different branches. A disciplinary proceeding was started against him. The charges levelled against him were as under :
"Katni Market Branch
1. You created an unpleasant scene and atmosphere by using unparliamentary language against the local authorities of the Branch in a calculated attempt to denigrate the said authority, which act of yours damaged/tarnished the image of the Bank.
Churcha Branch
2. You disobeyed the lawful and reasonable orders of the superiors. You also crossed the boundaries of decorum and decency. You have thus acted in a manner unbecoming of an official of the Bank.
3. You disregarded the lawful instructions of the superiors.
Shahdol Branch
4. (a) By your acts you have disobeyed the lawful instructions of the superiors. You also displayed gross negligence in performance your duties.
(b) By your acts you disobeyed the lawful and reasonable orders of the Bank. You also showed insubordination to the superior authorities. Your acts are unbecoming of officer of the Bank.
(c) By your acts you intentionally showed insubordination to the superior authorities of the Bank. You thus acted in a manner unbecoming of an official of the Bank.
(d) You created a feeling of insecurity amongst the staff members. You have acted in a manner unbecoming of an official of the Bank.
Jabalpur Regional Office
5. You failed to obey the reasonable and lawful orders of the Bank and behaved in a manner unbecoming of an official of the Bank.
The above charges, if proved, are tantamount to misconduct in contravention of Rules 32(1) and 32(4) and (5) of the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules governing our services.
2.s One Shri R.K. Sharma, Branch Manager, having been abused and threatened to be hit by shoes by the appellant, lodged two first information reports (FIR) against the appellant pursuant whereto two cases under section 353 of the Indian Penal Code were initiated in respect of the incidents which took place on 16.10.1986 and 23.10.1986. He was placed under suspension by an order dated 11.11.1986 by the disciplinary authority sating :
"It has been reported that soon after your reinstatement on 16th August, 1986 on conclusion of major penalty proceedings against you, you again misbehaved with your colleagues, senior officers and also some of the outsiders and used abusive language passing derogatory remarks during your recent stay at different branches viz. Katni Market, Churcha and Shahdol branches. This has tarnished the image of the Bank and resulted in your arrest by the local police on 16th October, 1986 and thereafter on 23rd October, 1986, under sections 353, 448 and 506 of Indian Penal Code. The nature and extent of the misbehaviour indicates that the established authorities of the Bank and certain other functionaries in the Regional Office are engendering indiscipline amongst the staff."
3. He was, however, acquitted of the charges levelled against him in the criminal proceedings by a learned Judicial Magistrate by a judgment dated 7.5.1988 inter alia on the ground that the same could not be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
4. The disciplinary authority thereafter issued a charge-sheet against h
SupremeToday
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
