IMPORTANT POINT
In departmental proceedings, insofar as imposition of punishment is concerned, unless the punishment imposed is either impermissible or such that it shocks the conscience of the High Court, it should not normally interfere with the same or substitute its own opinion in the imposition some other punishment.

Headnote:Service Matter-Gross misconduct and minor misconduct-Charge of drawing increments unauthorisedly by respondent-Disciplinary enquiry-Charge proved-Though gross misconduct warranting discharge under Sastry and Desai Awards-Bank imposed withdrawal of special allowances (Head Clerk Allowance)-Confirmed in Departmental appeal-In writ petition, Single Judge refused to interfere as it constituted a gross misconduct-In writ appeal, D.B. termed it a minor misconduct and remanded for fresh consideration of quantum of punishment-Employee taking voluntary retirement appeal against to Supreme Court-Whether voluntary retirement has any effect? (No)-Whether D.B. was right in writ appeal? (No)-Result-Appeal allowed.
       Held : We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing on either side. As rightly urged by the learned counsel for the appellant-Bank, the factum of voluntary retirement will have no impact on the proceedings which would involve and directly affect, having regard to the nature of punishment, pecuniary claims and rights of the parties and keeping in view that the respondent could assert a claim for the recovery of the amounts denied by way of withdrawal of special allowance (Head Clerk allowance), the issue cannot be avoided from being decided. (Para 9)
       Held further : The High Court seems to have overlooked the settled position that in departmental proceedings, insofar as imposition of penalty or punishment is concerned, unless the punishment or penalty imposed by the Disciplinary or Appellate Authority is either impermissible or such that it shocks the conscience of the High Court, it should not normally interfere with the same or substitute its own opinion and either impose some other punishment or penalty or direct the authority to impose a particular nature or category of punishment of its choice. It is for this reason we cannot accord our approval to the view taken by the High Court in disregard of this settled principle. Consequently, the appeal is allowed, the judgment of the Division Bench is set aside and that of the learned Single Judge shall stand restored. No costs. (Para 11)

JUDGMENT

D. Raju, J.-Special leave granted.

2. The respondent herein has joined the service of the State Bank of India in the year 1967 as a Clerk. When he was serving as such in Kurnool Bazar Branch, Kurnool, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him and he was placed under suspension on 11.7.1975 followed by a charge-sheet issued on 23.10.1975 framing four charges. Since in respect of some of the charges, namely 1, 3 and 4, criminal proceedings were also launched and as a sequel to the acquittal of the respondent by the Criminal Court, which was affirmed by the Appellate Court also, no further inquiry was held in respect of those charges framed in the departmental proceedings. Thereafter, another charge-sheet dated 19.10 1985 was issued against the respondent containing two charges, one of which related to the earlier departmental proceedings. The respondent was placed again under suspension w.e.f. 26.10.1985. When the criminal proceedings, noticed above, relating to the earlier set of charges were pending, the respondent came to be appointed as Head Clerk on 5.4.1983, which subsequently came to be also regularized w.e.f. 25.10.1983. It may be pointed out at this stage that such appointment as Head Clerk came to be made in the light of certain orders passed by the High Court in a writ proceedings and it was so done subject to the condition that the promotion of the respondent would be subject to the result of the domestic inquiry and also the appeal against the acquittal, which was at that time pending before the Court.

3. While matters stood thus, the departmental inquiry was held into the two charges, which read as follows:-

"1. It is alleged that you have surreptitiously taken into year possession the draft bearing No.BB.255680 dated 19.2.1973 for Rs. 500/- issued by Kurnool Bazar Branch on Hyderabad in favour of Syed Abdul Quayyum Hussam Sahib and encashed the same on 2.3.1973 by forging the payee s signature.

2. It is further alleged that during March 1981, when you were working as a Clerk in the establishment section, you prepared the establishment register and included unauthorisedly three increments for yourself pertaining to the years 1976 to 1978, the period during which you were under suspension and drawn the increments although you are not entitled for the same as per the reinstatement order served on you on 6th October, 1978".

4. The Inquiry Officer held both the charges to have been proved. Thereupon, the Disciplinary Authority, though proposed to inflict the punishment of discharge from the Bank service as provided in Paragraph 521(5)(e) of the Sastry Award read with Paragraph 18.28 of the Desai Award by his Notice dated 17.6.1987, on a consideration of the explanation and taking a lenient view, modified the proposed punishment of discharge from the Bank service into one of Withdrawal of Special Allowance (Head Clerk Allowance) as provided in Paragraph 521(5)(f) of the Sastry Award read with Paragraph 10.28 of Desai Award and passed final orders accordingly on 31.3.1988. The appeal filed by the respondent against the same did not meet with success. Thereupon, Writ Petition No.13011 of 1988 came to be filed to quash the same.

5. A learned Single Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court by his judgment dated 3.12.1992 dismissed the Writ Petition on the view that not only Charge No.2 of the Charges have been held proved, but the same constituted a gross misconduct of serious nature and consequently there was no scope for interference. When the matter was pursued in appeal (Writ Appeal No.256 of 1993), the Division Bench by an order dated 9.10.1996 declined to interfere on the view that the challenge to the quantum of punishment on the ground urged cannot be gone into in the said appeal. The respondent pursued the matter on further appeal before this Court in Civil Appeal No. 3842 of 1999 and by an Order dated 16.7.1999 this Court, while allowing the appeal and setting

Click Here to Read the rest of this document