Constitution of India: Art.226 – Appellant who was serving as the Branch officer at the Respondent Bank was accused of taking bribe from the borrower of the bank – Case of borrower-complainant that he had applied for loan which was sanctioned but the loan amount was later reduced by the appellant – Bank issued a show cause notice to the Appellant – Appellant denied the allegations and in turn levied allegations of malice and bias against the Chairman of the Bank – The disciplinary proceedings were commenced which found the Appellant guilty and he was removed from service – Appellant filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority which was dismissed –Aggrieved appellant filed writ petition before the High Court – During the pendency of this writ petition, the Appellant filed another writ petition seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the Bank to grant promotion from the date when those junior to him were promoted – High Court while hearing both writs together, dismissed the first writ petition thereby confirming the order of removal from service without further entering into the merits of the writ petition which was for promotion – Hence the instant appeal – Held: The charges proved in the departmental proceedings showed that there was no financial loss caused to the Bank and on the contrary a decision was taken by the appellant to reduce the loan amount in the case of the complainant, which can be said to be the decision in the bank’s interest – Moreover, the fact that the appellant had worked for 28 years and during those 28 years, there were no allegations against him, the punishment of removal for the charges proved and the misconduct established, is too harsh and disproportionate – However, considering the fact that it can be said to be a case of loss of confidence in the employee by the Bank, it is deemed just and proper to substitute the punishment from that of removal of service to that of compulsory retirement – As regards the second writ petition, the High Court had dismissed the said writ petition for promotion primarily on the ground that once he was removed from service, there was no question of considering his case for promotion – However, the appellant claimed the promotion from the date when his juniors came to be promoted – The material available on record showed that in the earlier round of litigation, the High Court had directed the Bank to consider his case for promotion considering his ACR for the Financial Years 1999-2000 to 2003-2004 – The said exercise was required to be done by the Bank – Therefore, the second writ petition is remanded to the High Court to decide the same afresh in accordance with law and on its own merits.
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The High Court has observed that the appellant demanded a bribe from complainant solely on the basis of his cross-examination. However, he had a reason to speak against the appellant as his loan amount was reduced from to
Rs.75,000/- by the appellant. It is the case on behalf of the appellant that considering the material and his capacity, a decision was taken to reduce the loan amount from Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.75,000/- which was taken in the interest of the bank. There are allegations of bias against the Chairman right from the very beginning. Even at one point of time the Chairman was chargesheeted for the offences under Sections 323, 354, 504, 506 IPC on the complaint filed by the wife of the appellant and on the basis of complaint filed by a woman delegate. It is true that subsequent thereto the criminal proceedings were quashed by the High Court. There were specific allegations of bias against the Chairman and the Bank right from the initiation of the departmental proceedings made by the appellant. [Para 3.1][425D-G]
2. The charges proved in the departmental proceedings showed that there is no financial loss caused to the Bank and on the contrary a decision was taken by the appellant to reduce the loan amount from Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.75,000/- in the case of the complainant, which can be said to be the decision in the bank’s interest. Moreover, the fact that the appellant had worked for 28 years and during those 28 years there are no allegations against him, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the punishment of removal for the charges proved and the misconduct established, is too harsh and disproportionate. However, considering the fact that it can be said to be a case of loss of confidence in the employee by the Bank, it is deemed just and proper to substitute the punishment from that of removal of service to that of compulsory retirement. [Para 3.2][425-G-H; 426-A-B]
3. So far as the submission on behalf of the appellant that the appellant has not conducted any misconduct and the finding recorded by the inquiry officer on the charges proved are perverse is concerned, the High Court is justified in holding that in the limited jurisdiction available to the High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High Court is not required to reappreciate the evidence and/or interfere with the findings recorded by the inquiry officer accepted by the disciplinary authority. However, the order of removal of service can be said to be disproportionate to the charges and misconduct held to be proved. [Para 4][426-C-D]
4. The High Court has dismissed the said writ petition for promotion primarily on the ground that once he is removed from service there is no question of considering his case for promotion. However, it is required to be noted that the appellant claimed the promotion from Scale II to Scale III from the date when his juniors came to be promoted w.e.f. 30.03.2005. From the material available on record, it appears that in the earlier round of litigation being Writ Petition (S/B) No.65 of 2012, the High Court had directed the Bank to consider his case for promotion considering his ACR for the Financial Years 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. The said exercise was required to be done by the Bank. Therefore, so far as the Writ Petition (S/B) No.267 of 2013 is concerned, the same is required to be remanded to the High Court to decide the same afresh in accordance with law and on its own merits. [Para 5][426-E-G]
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.