BOLORAM BORDOLOI versus LAKHIMI GAOLIA BANK & ORS. on 8 February 2021

Conclusion

1. This civil appeal is filed by the appellant in Writ Appeal No.361of 2008 on the file of Gauhati High Court, aggrieved by the order dated03.04.2009. By the aforesaid order, the order dated 08.06.2007 passedby the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.219 of 2006 wasconfirmed. The learned Single Judge, while confirming the order ofcompulsory retirement in disciplinary proceedings initiated against theappellant, has held that withholding of service benefits as well aspensionary dues to the appellant is illegal and issued directions to pay theretiral benefits.

2. The appellant was the Manager of the first respondent-bank.On the basis of certain allegations levelled against him, disciplinaryproceedings were initiated and charge memo dated 18.06.2004 wasissued. The substance of the charges is extracted in the order passed bythe learned Single Judge. In view of the reply filed by him on 15.07.2004,denying the charges, the respondent-bank having not satisfied with theexplanation, has decided to order departmental enquiry against theappellant. The Enquiry Officer, after completing the enquiry byappreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, has held thatall the charges, i.e. charge nos.1 to 5, framed against the appellant wereproved. In view of the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, therespondent-bank has proposed to inflict the punishment of compulsoryretirement on the appellant. Based on the findings recorded in thedepartmental enquiry, has passed order imposing the punishment of“compulsory retirement” from service. The appellant was unsuccessfulbefore the departmental appellate authority, i.e., Board of Directors ofthe Bank and the appellate authority has dismissed his appeal confirmingthe order of the disciplinary authority. Challenging the order of thedisciplinary authority imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement,as confirmed by the appellate authority, the appellant approached theHigh Court by filing Writ Petition (C) No.219 of 2006 before the GauhatiHigh Court. The learned Single Judge vide detailed judgment and orderdated 08.06.2007 has not interfered with the order of compulsoryretirement but at the same time has found that withholding of the servicebenefits including pensionary dues was illegal and issued directions forpayment of such benefits to the appellant. As against the order of thelearned Single Judge, the appellant has preferred Writ Appeal No.361 of B

C

DEF

G

H

A2008. The Division Bench of the High Court, by the impugned order, hasdismissed the same by confirming the order of the learned Single Judge.

3. We have heard Sri Parthiv Goswami, learned counsel for theappellant and Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for therespondent-bank.B

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has mainly contended thatafter completion of enquiry, even before furnishing a copy of enquiryreport, the disciplinary authority has issued show cause notice dated30.07.2005 vide Ref. No.LBG/I&V/PP&PA/154/08/2005-06 byindicating proposed punishment of compulsory retirement. It is submittedCthat such conclusion arrived at by the disciplinary authority even beforethe service of enquiry report, is illegal. To buttress his submission, thelearned counsel has placed reliance on judgment of this Court in thecase of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad & Ors. v. B.Karunakar & Ors. (1993) 4 SCC 727 and the judgment of this Court inDthe case of State Bank of India & Ors. v. Mohammad Badruddin(2019) 16 SCC 69. Further submission of the learned counsel was thatthe disciplinary authority has not recorded any reasons in the order dated29.08.2005 while imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement andsimilarly the appellate authority has dismissed the appeal without recordingreasons. Lastly, it is submitted by learned counsel that the punishmentEimposed is disproportionate to the gravity of charges, as such, prayedfor setting aside the impugned orders.

5. On the other hand, Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearingfor the respondent-bank, by taking us to the charges framed against theFappellant and the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, has submittedthat the charges framed against the appellant are grave and serious andin view of the proved misconduct of the appellant who was working asa Manager in the bank, the order of compulsory retirement was passedby the disciplinary authority. It is submitted that having regard to chargesframed against the appellant, punishment imposed cannot be said to beGdisproportionate. Further it is submitted that after enquiry is completed itis always open for the disciplinary authority to indicate the punishment inthe show cause notice, by enclosing a copy of the Enquiry Report. It issubmitted that the respondents have followed procedure contemplatedunder the Rules and the procedure adopted is in conformity with theHratio laid down by this Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, BOLORAM BORDOLOI v. LAKHIMI GAOLIA BANK & ORS.[R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.]

Hyderabad (supra). It is submitted that having regard to facts of thecase, the judgment in the case of Mohammad Badruddin (supra) hasno application to support the case of the appellant.

6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we haveperused the impugned order, the order of the learned Single Judge andother material placed on record.

7. The appellant was working as a Manager of the respondent-bank. A perusal of the charges, which are held to be proved by theEnquiry Officer, reveal that he has sanctioned and disbursed loans withoutfollowing the due procedure contemplated under law and also there areallegations of misappropriation, disbursing loans irregularly in someinstances to (a) units without any shop/business; (b) more than one loanto members of same family etc. The Enquiry Officer, after consideringoral and documentary evidence on record, has held that all the chargesare proved. Based on the findings recorded by Enquiry Officer, thedisciplinary authority has tentatively decided to impose punishment ofcompulsory retirement. Disciplinary authority has issued show causenotice dated 30.07.2005 by enclosing a copy of the enquiry report. Inresponse to the show cause notice, the appellant has submitted hiscomments vide letter dated 16.08.2005 indicating that due to work pressuresome operational lapses have occurred. Further he has also pleaded thatif the bank has sustained any loss due to his fault, he is ready to bearsuch loss from his own source. After filing the response to the showcause notice, order is passed by disciplinary authority imposing punishmentof compulsory retirement. After Enquiry Officer records his findings, itis always open for the disciplinary authority to arrive at tentative conclusionof proposed punishment and it can indicate to the delinquent employeeby enclosing a copy of the enquiry report. Though the learned counselfor the appellant has argued that even before tentative conclusion isarrived at by the disciplinary authority, the enquiry report has to be servedupon him, but there is no such proposition laid down in the judgment ofthis Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad(supra). In the aforesaid judgment of this Court it is held that delinquentemployee is entitled to a copy of the enquiry report of the enquiry officerbefore the disciplinary authority takes a decision on the question of guiltof the delinquent. Merely because a show cause notice is issued byindicating the proposed punishment it cannot be said that disciplinary A

B

C

D

EF

G

H

A

B

C

D

EF

G

H

Aauthority has taken a decision. A perusal of the show cause notice dated30.07.2005 itself makes it clear that along with the show cause noticeitself enquiry report was also enclosed. As such, it cannot be said thatthe procedure prescribed under the rules was not followed by respondent-bank. We are of the view that the judgment of this Court in the case ofManaging Director, ECIL, Hyderabad (supra) is not helpful to theBcase of the appellant. Further, it is well settled that if the disciplinaryauthority accepts the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and passesan order, no detailed reasons are required to be recorded in the orderimposing punishment. The punishment is imposed based on the findingsrecorded in the enquiry report, as such, no further elaborate reasons areCrequired to be given by the disciplinary authority. As the departmentalappeal was considered by the Board of Directors in the meeting held on10.12.2005, the Board’s decision is communicated vide order dated21.12.2005 in Ref. No.LGB/I&V/Appeal/31/02/2005-06. In that viewof the matter, we do not find any merit in the submission of the learnedcounsel for the appellant that orders impugned are devoid of reasons.D8. Even, the last submission of the learned counsel for the appellantthat the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the gravity of charges,also cannot be accepted. The charges framed against the appellant inthe departmental enquiry are serious and grave. If we look at the response,Ein his letter dated 16.08.2005, to the show cause notice issued by thedisciplinary 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 losssuffered by the bank on account of his lapses. The manager of a bankplays a vital role in managing the affairs of the bank. A bank officer/Femployee deals with the public money. The nature of his work demandsvigilance with the in-built requirement to act carefully. If an officer/employee of the bank is allowed to act beyond his authority, the disciplineof the bank will disappear. When the procedural guidelines are issuedfor grant of loans, officers/employees are required to follow the sameGmeticulously and any deviation will lead to erosion of public trust on thebanks. If the manager of a bank indulges in such misconduct, which isevident from the charge memo dated 18.06.2004 and the findings of theenquiry officer, it indicates that such charges are grave and serious.Inspite of proved misconduct on such serious charges, disciplinary H

BOLORAM BORDOLOI v. LAKHIMI GAOLIA BANK & ORS.[R. SUBHASH REDDY, J.]

authority itself was liberal in imposing the punishment of compulsoryretirement. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that thepunishment imposed in the disciplinary proceedings on the appellant, isdisproportionate to the gravity of charges. As such, this submission ofthe learned counsel for the appellant also cannot be accepted.

9. For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal is devoid of merit, sameis dismissed with no order as to costs.

Divya Pandey

Appeal dismissed.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H