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 dated 30.07.2005 itself makes it clear that along with the show cause notice itself enquiry report was also enclosed. (Para 7)
Boloram Bordoloi V/s Lakhimi Gaolia Bank & Ors.
CIVIL APPEAL NO.4394 OF 2010
Decided on 08th February, 2021
Counsel for Appellant: Sri Parthiv Goswami
Counsel for Respondent: Sri Rajesh Kumar
A three judge bench of Supreme Court consisting of Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice R. Subhash Reddy and Justice M.R. Shah dismissed the present appeal and set aside the decision of the High court due to lack of merit.
The appellant was the Manager of the first respondent bank. On the basis of certain allegations levelled against him, disciplinary proceedings were initiated and charge memo dated 18.06.2004 was issued. The appellant was working as a Manager of the respondentbank. A perusal of the charges, which are held to be proved by the Enquiry Officer, reveal that he has sanctioned and disbursed loans without following the due procedure contemplated under law and also there are allegations of misappropriation, disbursing loans irregularly in some instances to (a) units without any shop/business; (b) more than one loan to members of same family etc.
Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that (i) after completion of enquiry, even before furnishing a copy of enquiry report, the disciplinary authority has issued show cause notice by indicating proposed punishment of compulsory retirement. (ii) such conclusion arrived at by the disciplinary authority even before the service of enquiry report, is illegal. (iii) the disciplinary authority has not recorded any reasons in the order dated 29.08.2005 while imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement and similarly the appellate authority has dismissed the appeal without recording reasons. (iv) the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the gravity of charges prayed for setting aside the impugned orders.
Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent-bank submitted that (i) the charges framed against the appellant are grave and serious and in view of the proved misconduct of the appellant who was working as a Manager in the bank, the order of compulsory retirement was passed by the disciplinary authority. (ii) having regard to charges framed against the appellant, punishment imposed cannot be said to be disproportionate. (iii) after enquiry is completed it is always open for the disciplinary authority to indicate the punishment in the show cause notice, by enclosing a copy of the enquiry Report, hence stating that the Respondents have followed all the rules and procedure.
Answering the Appellants contention that even before tentative conclusion is arrived at by the disciplinary authority the enquiry report has to be served upon him, the Court observed the following:
"Though the learned counsel for the appellant has 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 7 C.A.No.4394 of 2010 Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad (supra). In the aforesaid judgment of this Court 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 dated 30.07.2005 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."(Para 7)
In the above regard the Court further noted:
“Even, the last submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the gravity of charges, also cannot be accepted. The charges framed against the appellant in the departmental enquiry are serious and grave. If we look at the response, in his letter dated 16.08.2005, to the show cause notice issued by the disciplinary authority, it is clear that he has 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 dated 18.06.2004 and the findings of the enquiry officer, it indicates that such charges are grave and serious. In spite of proved misconduct on such serious charges, disciplinary authority itself was liberal in imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the punishment imposed in the disciplinary proceedings on the appellant, is disproportionate to the gravity of charges. As such, this submission of the learned counsel for the appellant also cannot be accepted.” (Para 8)
The appeal was found devoid of merit and hence dismissed.
View/Download Judgment: Boloram Bordoloi V/s Lakhimi Gaolia Bank & Ors.
Risikesh Dhanaki
Comments