Service Law – Allegations of misappropriation, irregular disbursal of loans against appellant-Manager of respondent-bank – Departmental enquiry initiated – Enquiry Officer held charges against the appellant were proved – Disciplinary authority imposed punishment of compulsory retirement – Order confirmed by Appellate authority – Appellant filed writ petition – Single Judge of High Court did not interfere with the order of compulsory retirement but held the withholding of service benefits, pensionary dues as illegal, directed for payment thereof to the appellant – Order confirmed by Division Bench – Held: On facts, it cannot be said that the procedure prescribed under the rules was not followed by respondent –Charges framed are serious and grave – Appellant virtually admitted the charges, however, tried to explain that such lapses occurred due to work pressure – Inspite of proved misconduct on serious charges, disciplinary authority itself was liberal in imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement – Punishment imposed not disproportionate to the gravity of charges – Appeal devoid of merit. Service Law – Departmental enquiry – Findings recorded by Enquiry Officer – Punishment order passed by disciplinary authority – Recording of reasons – Held: If the disciplinary authority accepts the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and passes an order, no detailed reasons are required to be recorded in the order imposing punishment.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: The Enquiry Officer after considering oral and documentary evidence on record, has held that all the charges are proved. Based on the findings recorded by Enquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority has tentatively decided to impose punishment of compulsory retirement. Disciplinary authority has issued show cause notice dated 30.07.2005 by enclosing a copy of the enquiry report. In response to the show cause notice, the appellant has submitted his comments vide letter dated 16.08.2005. After filing the response to the show cause notice, order is passed by disciplinary authority imposing punishment of compulsory retirement. After Enquiry Officer records his findings, it is always open for the disciplinary authority to arrive at tentative conclusion of proposed punishment and it can indicate to the delinquent employee by enclosing a copy of the enquiry report. Though the counsel for the appellant argued that even before tentative conclusion is arrived at by the disciplinary authority, the enquiry report has to be served upon him, but there is no such proposition laid down in the judgment of this Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad relied on by the counsel for the appellant. In the aforesaid judgment it is held that delinquent employee is entitled to a copy of the enquiry report of the enquiry officer before the disciplinary authority takes a decision on the question of guilt of the delinquent. Merely because a show cause notice is issued by indicating the proposed punishment it cannot be said that disciplinary authority has taken a decision. A perusal of the show cause notice itself makes it clear that along with the show cause notice itself enquiry report was also enclosed. As such, it cannot be said that the procedure prescribed under the rules was not followed by respondent-bank. If the disciplinary authority accepts the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and passes an order, no detailed reasons are required to be recorded in the order imposing punishment. The punishment is imposed based on the findings recorded in the enquiry report, as such, no further elaborate reasons are required to be given by the disciplinary authority. The charges framed against the appellant in the departmental enquiry are serious and grave. In his letter dated 16.08.2005, to the show cause notice issued by the disciplinary authority, he virtually admitted the charges, however, tried to explain that such lapses occurred due to work pressure. Further he went to the extent of saying – he is ready to bear the loss suffered by the bank on account of his lapses. The manager of a bank plays a vital role in managing the affairs of the bank. A bank officer/employee deals with the public money. The nature of his work demands vigilance with the inbuilt requirement to act carefully. If an officer/employee of the bank is allowed to act beyond his authority, the discipline of the bank will disappear. When the procedural guidelines are issued for grant of loans, officers/employees are required to follow the same meticulously and any deviation will lead to erosion of public trust on the banks. If the manager of a bank indulges in such misconduct, which is evident from the charge memo and the findings of the enquiry officer, it indicates that such charges are grave and serious. Inspite of proved misconduct on such serious charges, disciplinary authority itself was liberal in imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement. It cannot be said that the punishment imposed in the disciplinary proceedings on the appellant, is disproportionate to the gravity of charges. The apppeal is devoid of merit. [Paras 7, 8][863-D-H; 864-A-C; E-H; 865-A-B]
Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad & Ors. v. B. Karunakar & Ors. (1993) 4 SCC 727: [1993] 2 Suppl. SCR 576 – held inapplicable.
State Bank of India & Ors. v. Mohammad Badruddin (2019) 16 SCC 69: [2019] 9 SCR 1016 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.