TMI Blog2003 (3) TMI 724X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Borrower Date Advance Amount advance Land holding Sri Ram Ratan Ram (Jt. A/C) 29-03-1985 ₹ 4750/- 1.37 acres Sri Indra Deo Singh Yadav 11-03-1985 ₹ 1200/- 1.64 acres b) Under the aforesaid minor irrigation scheme advances for pumpsets have been allowed without obtaining the completion report of boring from A.D.O. (M.I.). Few such cases are as follows: - Name of the Borrower Date of Advance Amount of Advance Sri Narain others 06-06-1984 ₹ 8536.00 25-05-1984 ₹ 2150.00 Rabindra Singh Yadav 13-08-1984 ₹ 7800.00 09-08-1984 ₹ 4200.00 c) Under minor irrigation scheme advances for electric Tube Well/pump set have been allowed without verification of electricity. Few examples are as follows: - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ce Amount of Advance Smt. Ugani Devi 1-03-1986 ₹ 4250.00 Sri Kapoor chand singh Yadav 27-03-1986 ₹ 4750.00 By this aforesaid negligence and irregular action Sri Gupta has violated the rules 3(1) 3(3) of Allahabad Bank Officer Exmployees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 which amounts to misconduct under rule 24 of the aforesaid regulations. After holding enquiry, he was found guilty of some of the charges and ultimately the disciplinary authority ordered his removal from service. He also failed in the appeal filed before the appellate authority challenging the order of his removal from service. Thereafter, he filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the order of his removal from service contending that - (a) the order of dismissal was passed by an authority junior to the appointing authority, so it was violative of Article 311 of the Constitution of India; (b) none of the charges leveled against him amounted to any misconduct; (c) the findings of the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority were perverse a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppropriation of any money. According to the learned counsel, the appellant acted only on the basis of the circulars issued by the Bank and at any rate, the extreme penalty of his removal from service was shockingly disproportionate to the charges held proved against him. The learned counsel also submitted that the decision in the case of State Bank of India Ors. vs. Samerendra Kishore Endow Anr. (supra) does not hold the field any more. There has been great change in approach of this Court even with regard to the proportionality of the punishment to the charges proved. He cited few decisions in support of his submissions. He also added that the appellant was removed from service on 28.3.1988; he could have superannuated on 31.8.1994; even assuming that on account of irregularities said to have been committed by the appellant, a small loan amount of ₹ 45,000/- in all, which could not be recovered from borrowers and could be deducted from his retirement benefits. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents made submissions in support of the impugned order. The learned counsel further urged that having regard to the nature of charges which were held proved aga ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hus:- The next question is whether the Tribunal was justified in interfering with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. A Constitution Bench of this Court in State of Orissa vs. Bidyabhushan Mohapatra (AIR 1963 SC 779) held that having regard to the gravity of the established misconduct, the punishing authority had the power and jurisdiction to impose punishment. The penalty was not open to review by the High Court under Article 226. If the High Court reached a finding that there was some evidence to reach the conclusion, it became unassessable. The order of the Governor who had jurisdiction and unrestricted power to determine the appropriate punishment was final. The High court had no jurisdiction to direct the Governor to review the penalty. It was further held that if the order was supported on any finding as to substantial misconduct for which punishment can lawfully be imposed , it was not for the Court to consider whether that ground alone would have weighed with the authority in dismissing the public servant. The Court had no jurisdiction, if the findings prima facie made out a case of misconduct, to direct the Governor to reconsider the order of pena ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion, it may itself in exceptional and rare cases impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof. In the background or what has been stated above, one thing is clear that the power of interference with the quantum of punishment is extremely limited. But when relevant factors are not taken note of, which have some bearing on the quantum of punishment, certainly the Court can direct re-reconsideration or in an appropriate case to shorten litigation, indicate the punishment to be awarded. It is stated that there was no occasion in the long past service indicating either irregularity or misconduct of the appellant except the charges which were the subject matter of his removal from service. The stand of the appellant as indicated above is that though small advances may have become irrecoverable, there is nothing to indicate that the appellant had misappropriated any money or had committed any act of fraud. If any loss has been caused to the bank (which he quantifies at about ₹ 46,000/-) that can be recovered from the appellant. As the reading of the various articles of charges go to show, at the most there is some procedural irregularity which cannot be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
