UMESH KUMAR PAHWA versus THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS UTTARAKHAND GRAMIN BANK & ORS. on 11 February 2022

[2022] 16 S.C.R.

AUMESH KUMAR PAHWA

v.

THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS UTTARAKHAND GRAMINBANK & ORS.

(Civil Appeal No. 796-799 of 2022)

B

FEBRUARY 11, 2022

[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]

Constitution of India: Art.226 – Appellant who was servingas the Branch officer at the Respondent Bank was accused of takingCbribe from the borrower of the bank – Case of borrower-complainantthat he had applied for loan which was sanctioned but the loanamount was later reduced by the appellant – Bank issued a showcause notice to the Appellant – Appellant denied the allegationsand in turn levied allegations of malice and bias against theDChairman of the Bank – The disciplinary proceedings werecommenced which found the Appellant guilty and he was removedfrom service – Appellant filed an appeal before the AppellateAuthority which was dismissed –Aggrieved appellant filed writpetition before the High Court – During the pendency of this writpetition, the Appellant filed another writ petition seeking a writ ofEmandamus commanding the Bank to grant promotion from the datewhen those junior to him were promoted – High Court while hearingboth writs together, dismissed the first writ petition therebyconfirming the order of removal from service without further enteringinto the merits of the writ petition which was for promotion – HenceFthe instant appeal – Held: The charges proved in the departmentalproceedings showed that there was no financial loss caused to theBank and on the contrary a decision was taken by the appellant toreduce the loan amount in the case of the complainant, which canbe said to be the decision in the bank’s interest – Moreover, the factthat the appellant had worked for 28 years and during those 28Gyears, there were no allegations against him, the punishment ofremoval for the charges proved and the misconduct established, istoo harsh and disproportionate – However, considering the factthat it can be said to be a case of loss of confidence in the employeeby the Bank, it is deemed just and proper to substitute the punishmentHfrom that of removal of service to that of compulsory retirement – As regards the second writ petition, the High Court had dismissed thesaid writ petition for promotion primarily on the ground that oncehe was removed from service, there was no question of consideringhis case for promotion – However, the appellant claimed thepromotion from the date when his juniors came to be promoted –The material available on record showed that in the earlier roundof litigation, the High Court had directed the Bank to consider hiscase for promotion considering his ACR for the Financial Years1999-2000 to 2003-2004 – The said exercise was required to bedone by the Bank – Therefore, the second writ petition is remandedto the High Court to decide the same afresh in accordance with lawand on its own merits.

Partly allowing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1. The High Court has observed that the appellantdemanded a bribe from complainant solely on the basis of hiscross-examination. However, he had a reason to speak againstthe appellant as his loan amount was reduced from toRs.75,000/- by the appellant. It is the case on behalf of theappellant that considering the material and his capacity, a decisionwas taken to reduce the loan amount from Rs.1,50,000/- toRs.75,000/- which was taken in the interest of the bank. Thereare allegations of bias against the Chairman right from the verybeginning. Even at one point of time the Chairman was charge-sheeted for the offences under Sections 323, 354, 504, 506 IPCon the complaint filed by the wife of the appellant and on thebasis of complaint filed by a woman delegate. It is true thatsubsequent thereto the criminal proceedings were quashed bythe High Court. There were specific allegations of bias againstthe Chairman and the Bank right from the initiation of thedepartmental proceedings made by the appellant. [Para 3.1][425-D-G]

2. The charges proved in the departmental proceedingsshowed that there is no financial loss caused to the Bank and onthe contrary a decision was taken by the appellant to reduce theloan amount from Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.75,000/- in the case of thecomplainant, which can be said to be the decision in the bank’sinterest. Moreover, the fact that the appellant had worked for 28years and during those 28 years there are no allegations against ABC

D

EF

GH

Ahim, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the punishmentof removal for the charges proved and the misconduct established,is too harsh and disproportionate. However, considering the factthat it can be said to be a case of loss of confidence in theemployee by the Bank, it is deemed just and proper to substitutethe punishment from that of removal of service to that ofBcompulsory retirement. [Para 3.2][425-G-H; 426-A-B]

3. So far as the submission on behalf of the appellant thatthe appellant has not conducted any misconduct and the findingrecorded by the inquiry officer on the charges proved are perverseis concerned, the High Court is justified in holding that in theClimited jurisdiction available to the High Court in exercise ofpowers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the HighCourt is not required to reappreciate the evidence and/orinterfere with the findings recorded by the inquiry officer acceptedby the disciplinary authority. However, the order of removal ofDservice can be said to be disproportionate to the charges andmisconduct held to be proved. [Para 4][426-C-D]

4. The High Court has dismissed the said writ petition forpromotion primarily on the ground that once he is removed fromservice there is no question of considering his case for promotion.EHowever, it is required to be noted that the appellant claimedthe promotion from Scale II to Scale III from the date when hisjuniors came to be promoted w.e.f. 30.03.2005. From the materialavailable on record, it appears that in the earlier round of litigationbeing Writ Petition (S/B) No.65 of 2012, the High Court haddirected the Bank to consider his case for promotion consideringFhis ACR for the Financial Years 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. Thesaid exercise was required to be done by the Bank. Therefore,so far as the Writ Petition (S/B) No.267 of 2013 is concerned, thesame is required to be remanded to the High Court to decide thesame afresh in accordance with law and on its own merits. [ParaG5][426-E-G]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 796-799 of 2022.

UMESH KUMAR PAHWA v. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS,UTTARAKHAND GRAMIN BANK

From the Judgment and Order dated 17.07.2018 of the High Courtof Uttarakhand at Nainital in Writ Petition No. 04(S/B) of 2013 and WritPetition No. 267(S/B) of 2013 and Impugned final Order dated 08.01.2020in Review Application MCC No. 1039 and 1026 of 2018.

Ms.Priya Hingo Rani, Sr.Adv., Azim H. Laskar, Ganesan Subbian,Jyoti kumar Singh, Chandra Bhushan Prasad, Advs. for the Appellant.

D.S. Patni, Sr. Adv., Suhaas Ratna Joshi, Mahendra Singh Rawat,Ms. Mallika Joshi, Dharmendra Barthwal, Adv. for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

M. R. SHAH, J.

1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned commonjudgment and order dated 17.07.2018 passed by the High Court ofUttarakhand at Nainital in Writ Petition (S/B) No.4 of 2013 and WritPetition (S/B) No.267 of 2013 as well as the order passed in the reviewapplications dismissing the same vide common order dated 08.01.2020,the employee - the original writ petitioner has preferred the presentappeals.

2. That the appellant herein was serving as a Branch Officer atPratap Pur Branch of the Respondent – Bank. He has put in 28 years’of service. While he was serving at Pratap Pur Branch during the period27.06.2008 to 21.11.2008, a complaint was made against the appellantby one borrower of the Bank namely Karamjeet Singh on 17.09.2008alleging that the appellant had sanctioned the limit of loan ofRs.1,50,000/- which was later on reduced to Rs.75,000/-. Four otherpersons also made the complaint against the appellant. On receiving thecomplaint against the appellant - the Chairman of the Bank transferredhim to another branch of the Bank, during pendency of the inquirypertaining to aforesaid complaints. A show cause notice was issued tothe appellant seeking his explanation. The appellant replied to the saidshow cause notice stating therein that the allegations in the complaintare baseless, frivolous and fabricated. He also made allegations of maliceand bias against the Chairman of the Bank. The disciplinary proceedingswere initiated against the appellant. A charge-sheet was issued to himand following charges were framed:

“1. He did not discharge his duties with integrity and honesty andtook such actions and committed such omissions which showedlack of probity and integrity on his part.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

A2. He committed serious violations of duty and breach of trustreposed in him by the Bank and misused his official position.

3. In the performance of his official duties and in exercise ofpowers conferred on him, he unauthorizedly exceeded his authority/powers and did not report the same for/or obtained approval/Bconfirmation 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.

C6. He misrepresented and suppressed material facts from higherauthorities.

7. He knowingly and willfully violated Bank’s rules and establishedprocedures for his personal gains.

8. Due to his acts, bank is likely to suffer financial losses.

D

9. He committed such acts which tarnished the image of the Bank.

10. He did acts unbecoming of an officer of the Bank”

2.1 That the Bank decided to initiate an inquiry for a majorpunishment. The appellant participated in the departmental inquiry. TheEcomplainant, 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 asproved. On receipt of the inquiry report the appellant submitted his replyand contended that the findings of the Inquiry Officer are perverse tothe material placed on record and against the principle of natural justice.He also made allegations of bias against the Chairman of the Bank.FThereafter after considering the inquiry report and giving opportunity tothe appellant, the disciplinary authority/Chairman of the Bank passed anorder of removal of the appellant from service. The appellant preferredan appeal before the Appellate Authority and the Appellant Authoritydismissed the appeal vide order dated 20.12.2011. Feeling aggrievedGagainst the order of removal from service, the appellant preferred thepresent 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 theappellant also preferred another Writ Petition No.267 of 2013 seeking aHwrit of mandamus commanding the Bank to grant promotion from Scale

II to Scale III from the date when those junior to him were promotedw.e.f. 30.03.2005. Both the writ petitions were heard together. By theimpugned judgment and order the High Court has dismissed Writ Petition(S/B) No.4 of 2013 confirming the order of removal from service of theappellant. As the order of removal had been confirmed, the High Courtwithout further entering into the merits of the case also dismissed WritPetition (S/B) No.267 of 2013 which was for seeking promotion fromScale II to Scale III officer from the date when those juniors to theappellant were promoted i.e. w.e.f. 30.03.2005.

Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned commonjudgment and order passed in Writ Petition (S/B) No.267 of 2013 as wellas W.P. (S/B.) No.4 of 2013, the employee delinquent has preferred thepresent appeals.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective partiesat length.

3.1 Having considered the impugned judgment and order passedby the High Court and even the findings recorded by the Inquiry officerit appears that the High Court has observed that the appellant demandeda bribe from Karamjeet Singh solely on the basis of his cross-examination.However, it is required to be noted that he had a reason to speak againstthe appellant as his loan amount was reduced from Rs.1,50,000/- toRs.75,000/- by the appellant. It is the case on behalf of the appellant thatconsidering the material and his capacity a decision was taken to reducethe loan amount from Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.75,000/- which was taken inthe interest of the bank. There are allegations of bias against the Chairmanright from the very beginning. Even at one point of time the Chairmanwas charge-sheeted for the offences under Sections 323, 354, 504, 506IPC on the complaint filed by the wife of the appellant and on the basisof complaint filed by a woman delegate. It is true that subsequent theretothe criminal proceedings were quashed by the High Court. Be that itmay, there were specific allegations of bias against the Chairman andthe Bank right from the initiation of the departmental proceedings madeby the appellant.

3.2 Even looking to the charges proved in the departmentalproceedings we find that as such, there is no financial loss caused to theBank and on the contrary a decision was taken by the appellant to reducethe loan amount from Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.75,000/- in the case ofKaramjeet Singh -the complainant, which can be said to be the decision AB

C

DEF

G

H

Ain the bank’s interest. Moreover, the fact that the appellant had workedfor 28 years and during those 28 years there are no allegations againsthim, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinionthat the punishment of removal for the charges proved and the misconductestablished, is too harsh and disproportionate. However, considering thefact that it can be said to be a case of loss of confidence in the employeeBby the Bank, we deem it just and proper to substitute the punishmentfrom that of removal of service to that of compulsory retirement.

4. So far as the submission on behalf of the appellant that theappellant has not conducted any misconduct and the finding recorded bythe inquiry officer on the charges proved are perverse is concerned, theCHigh Court is justified in holding that in the limited jurisdiction availableto the High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of theConstitution of India, the High Court is not required to reappreciate theevidence and/or interfere with the findings recorded by the inquiry officeraccepted by the disciplinary authority. However, as observed hereinaboveDthe order of removal of service can be said to be disproportionate to thecharges and misconduct held to be proved.

5. Now in so far as the dismissal of Writ Petition (S/B) No.267 of2013 is concerned, at the outset it is required to be noted that the HighCourt has not dealt with and considered the same on merits independently.EThe High Court has dismissed the said writ petition for promotion primarilyon the ground that once he is removed from service there is no questionof considering his case for promotion. However, it is required to be notedthat the appellant claimed the promotion from Scale II to Scale III fromthe date when his juniors came to be promoted w.e.f. 30.03.2005. Fromthe material available on record, it appears that in the earlier round ofFlitigation being Writ Petition (S/B) No.65 of 2012, the High Court haddirected the Bank to consider his case for promotion considering hisACR for the Financial Years 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. The said exercisewas required to be done by the Bank. Therefore, so far as the WritPetition (S/B) No.267 of 2013 is concerned, the same is required to beGremanded to the High Court to decide the same afresh in accordancewith law and on its own merits.

6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above theimpugned Judgment and Order passed by the High Court passed in WritPetition (S/B) No.4 of 2013 is hereby modified to the extent substitutingHthe punishment from that of removal of service to that of compulsoryretirement.

The appellant shall be entitled to all the benefits which may beavailable to him by converting the punishment from that of removal ofservice to that of compulsory retirement. So far as the impugned judgmentand order of the High Court in Writ Petition (S/B) No.267 of 2013 isconcerned, in view of the above and for the reason stated above and asthe High Court has not decided the said writ petition on merits, we setaside the impugned judgment and order as well as the order dated08.01.2020 dismissing the said Writ Petition (S/B) No.267 of 2013 andremand the matter to the High Court to decide the same afresh inaccordance with law and on its own merits.

Present appeals are accordingly allowed to the aforesaid extent.However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be noorder as to costs.

Devika Gujral and Amarendra Kumar(Assisted by : Iram Jan, LCRA)

Appeals partly allowed.

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H