The court’s detailed legal analysis in a recent case involving disciplinary action in the banking sector sheds light on the complexities of such matters. The judgment considers various aspects of the case, including allegations of bias, misconduct, and the proportionality of the imposed punishment. This summary delves into the key legal points raised by the court in its decision.
Facts
- The appellant, a Branch Officer at Pratap Pur Branch of the Bank, has put in 28 years of service.
- He flouted instructions of higher authorities and committed acts unbecoming of an officer of the Bank.
- An inquiry found multiple charges against the appellant to be proved, including misrepresentation and suppression of material facts.
- Allegations of bias were made against the Chairman of the Bank, and serious violations of duty and breach of trust were noted.
- The High Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellant, confirming the order of removal from service.
- Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the appellant for actions tarnishing the bank’s image and violating established procedures.
- The appellant’s reply to show cause notice denied the allegations as baseless and fabricated, also alleging malice and bias.
- The appellant’s actions included knowingly and willfully violating bank rules for personal gain and exceeding his authority without proper approval.
- The High Court’s judgment, dismissal of review applications, and order of removal from service were appealed by the appellant.
Also Read: Ruling on Circumstantial Evidence in Murder Case
Analysis
- High Court observed that appellant demanded a bribe based solely on cross-examination
- Criminal proceedings were later quashed by the High Court
- Specific allegations of bias against the Chairman and the Bank from the start of departmental proceedings by the appellant
- In departmental proceedings, no financial loss to the Bank, decision to reduce loan in bank’s interest
- Punishment of removal deemed harsh and disproportionate, substituted with compulsory retirement
- High Court not required to reappreciate evidence or interfere with inquiry officer’s findings
- Order of removal considered disproportionate to charges and misconduct proved
- Decision to reduce loan amount argued to be in the interest of the bank based on material and capacity
- Allegations of bias against the Chairman from the outset, even facing charge-sheet for criminal offenses
- Appellant claimed promotion from Scale II to Scale III from the date when his juniors were promoted in 03.2005.
- High Court directed the Bank to consider his case for promotion based on his ACR for Financial Years 1999-2000 to 2003-2004.
- Previous litigation resulted in a direction for the Bank to conduct the promotion exercise.
- Writ Petition (S/B) No.267 of 2013 needs to be remanded to the High Court for a fresh decision based on the law and merits of the case.
Also Read: Challenging Legal Presumptions in Negotiable Instrument Cases
Decision
- The impugned Judgment and Order passed by the High Court in Writ Petition (S/B) No.4 of 2013 is modified to substitute the punishment from removal of service to compulsory retirement.
- The High Court’s judgment and order in Writ Petition (S/B) No.267 of 2013 is set aside as it was not decided on merits.
- The matter is remanded to the High Court to decide afresh in accordance with the law and on its own merits.
- The present appeals are allowed to the extent mentioned.
- No costs are awarded in the case.
- The appellant is entitled to benefits available by converting the punishment from removal of service to compulsory retirement.
Also Read: Legal Analysis Critique in High Court’s Quashing Order
Case Title: UMESH KUMAR PAHWA Vs. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS UTTARAKHAND GRAMIN BANK (2022 INSC 178)
Case Number: C.A. No.-000796-000799 / 2022
