Umesh Kumar Pahwa vs Board of Directors Uttarakhand Gramin Bank
Umesh Kumar Pahwa vs Board of Directors Uttarakhand Gramin Bank - Supreme Court Case 2022 -
[REPORTABLE]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.796799 OF 2022
Umesh Kumar Pahwa .. Appellant
Versus
The Board of Directors Uttarakhand
Gramin Bank & Ors. .. Respondents
J U D G M E N T
M. R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
common judgment and order dated 17.07.2018 passed by the
High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Writ Petition (S/B)
No.4 of 2013 and Writ Petition (S/B) No.267 of 2013 as well as
the order passed in the review applications dismissing the
2
same vide common order dated 08.01.2020, the employee the
original writ petitioner has preferred the present appeals.
2. That the appellant herein was serving as a Branch Officer
at Pratap Pur Branch of the Respondent – Bank. He has put
in 28 years’ of service. While he was serving at Pratap Pur
Branch during the period 27.06.2008 to 21.11.2008, a
complaint was made against the appellant by one borrower of
the Bank namely Karamjeet Singh on 17.09.2008 alleging that
the appellant had sanctioned the limit of loan of Rs.1,50,000/
which was later on reduced to Rs.75,000/. Four other
persons also made the complaint against the appellant. On
receiving the complaint against the appellant the Chairman
of the Bank transferred him to another branch of the Bank,
during pendency of the inquiry pertaining to aforesaid
complaints. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant
seeking his explanation. The appellant replied to the said
show cause notice stating therein that the allegations in the
complaint are baseless, frivolous and fabricated. He also
made allegations of malice and bias against the Chairman of
3
the Bank. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against
the appellant. A chargesheet was issued to him and following
charges were framed:
“1. He did not discharge his duties with integrity
and honesty and took such actions and committed
such omissions which showed lack of probity and
integrity on his part.
2. He committed serious violations of duty and
breach of trust reposed in him by the Bank and
misused his official position.
3. In the performance of his official duties and in
exercise of powers conferred on him, he
unauthorizedly exceeded his authority / powers
and did not report the same for / or obtained
approval / confirmation from higher authorities for
such excessive actions.
4. He flouted instructions of the higher authorities.
5. He adopted such steps and took such actions as
were derogatory, prejudicial and detrimental to the
interest of the bank.
6. He misrepresented and suppressed material
facts from higher authorities.
7. He knowingly and willfully violated Bank’s rules
and established procedures for his personal gains.
8. Due to his acts, bank is likely to suffer financial
losses.
9. He committed such acts which tarnished the
image of the Bank.
4
10. He did acts unbecoming of an officer of the
Bank”
2.1 That the Bank decided to initiate an inquiry for a major
punishment. The appellant participated in the departmental
inquiry. The complainant, Karamjeet Singh was also
examined during the inquiry. The inquiry officer held the
charges No.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10 as proved. On receipt
of the inquiry report the appellant submitted his reply and
contended that the findings of the Inquiry Officer are perverse
to the material placed on record and against the principle of
natural justice. He also made allegations of bias against the
Chairman of the Bank. Thereafter after considering the
inquiry report and giving opportunity to the appellant, the
disciplinary authority/Chairman of the Bank passed an order
of removal of the appellant from service. The appellant
preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority and the
Appellant Authority dismissed the appeal vide order dated
20.12.2011. Feeling aggrieved against the order of removal
5
from service, the appellant preferred the present writ petition
before the High Court being Writ Petition (S/B) No.4 of 2013.
2.2 During the pendency of Writ Petition (S/B) No.4 of 2013
the appellant also preferred another Writ Petition No.267 of
2013 seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the Bank to
grant promotion from Scale II to Scale III from the date when
those junior to him were promoted w.e.f. 30.03.2005. Both
the writ petitions were heard together. By the impugned
judgment and order the High Court has dismissed Writ
Petition (S/B) No.4 of 2013 confirming the order of removal
from service of the appellant. As the order of removal had
been confirmed, the High Court without further entering into
the merits of the case also dismissed Writ Petition (S/B)
No.267 of 2013 which was for seeking promotion from Scale II
to Scale III officer from the date when those juniors to the
appellant were promoted i.e. w.e.f. 30.03.2005.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned
common judgment and order passed in Writ Petition (S/B)
6
No.267 of 2013 as well as W.P. (S/B.) No.4 of 2013, the
employee delinquent has preferred the present appeals.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective
parties at length.
3.1 Having considered the impugned judgment and order
passed by the High Court and even the findings recorded by
the Inquiry officer it appears that the High Court has observed
that the appellant demanded a bribe from Karamjeet Singh
solely on the basis of his crossexamination. However, it is
required to be noted that he had a reason to speak against the
appellant as his loan amount was reduced from Rs.1,50,000/
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
7
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. Be
that it may, there were specific allegations of bias against the
Chairman and the Bank right from the initiation of the
departmental proceedings made by the appellant.
3.2 Even looking to the charges proved in the departmental
proceedings we find that as such, 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 Karamjeet Singh
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, we are of the opinion that the punishment of removal for
the charges proved and the misconduct established, is too
harsh and disproportionate. However, considering the fact
8
that it can be said to be a case of loss of confidence in the
employee by the Bank, we deem it just and proper to
substitute the punishment from that of removal of service to
that of compulsory retirement.
4. 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, as observed hereinabove the order of
removal of service can be said to be disproportionate to the
charges and misconduct held to be proved.
5. Now in so far as the dismissal of Writ Petition (S/B)
No.267 of 2013 is concerned, at the outset it is required to be
9
noted that the High Court has not dealt with and considered
the same on merits independently. 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 19992000 to
20032004. 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.
6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above the
impugned Judgment and Order passed by the High Court
10
passed in Writ Petition (S/B) No.4 of 2013 is hereby modified
to the extent substituting the punishment from that of
removal of service to that of compulsory retirement.
The appellant shall be entitled to all the benefits which
may be available to him by converting the punishment from
that of removal of service to that of compulsory retirement. So
far as the impugned judgment and order of the High Court in
Writ Petition (S/B) No.267 of 2013 is concerned, in view of the
above and for the reason stated above and as the High Court
has not decided the said writ petition on merits, we set aside
the impugned judgment and order as well as the order dated
08.01.2020 dismissing the said Writ Petition (S/B) No.267 of
2013 and remand the matter to the High Court to decide the
same afresh in accordance with law and on its own merits.
11
Present appeals are accordingly allowed to the aforesaid
extent. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case,
there shall be no order as to costs.
………………………………….J.
[M.R. SHAH]
NEW DELHI; ..……………………………….J.
FEBRUARY 11, 2022 [B.V. NAGARATHNA]
Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले
Comments
Post a Comment