Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Raj Pal Singh Malik vs U.P. Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd. &Ors. on 15 September, 2015
Bench: T.S. Thakur, Kurian Joseph
1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.(S). 7108-7109 OF 2015
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Nos.28455-28456 of 2011)
RAJ PAL SINGH MALIK Appellant(s)
VERSUS
U.P. SAHKARI GRAM VIKAS BANK LTD. & ORS. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
These appeals arise out of two orders, one dated 20 th April, 2010 passed in Writ Petition (service) No.464 of 2010, and the other dated 16th August, 2010 passed in Review Petition (Defective) No.320 of 2010 whereby the High Court of Allahabad has dismissed the writ petition and the review petition filed by the appellant in the process affirming his reversion from the post of Branch Manager of the respondent-bank to that of a field officer.
The appellant it appears was working as a Branch Manager in the respondent-Bank when he was charged with misconduct on three distinct counts involving disbursement of two loans of an amount of Rs.9,000/- each in favour of a borrower. The substance of the charge against the appellant was that he had committed a dereliction of duties, inasmuch as he had without proper verification affixed the photograph of the borrower's son instead of the borrower himself on the loan Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by applications/disbursement Mahabir Singh Date: 2015.09.22 documents. The charge was 16:54:13 IST Reason:
investigated and eventually held proved in a departmental enquiry, instituted against the appellant. The disciplinary 2 authority initially proposed termination of the service of the appellant as punishment for the misconduct proved against the appellant but upon disapproval of the same by the U.P. Sahkari Institutional Service Board, Lucknow, settled for a lesser punishment of reversion of the appellant from the post of Branch Manager to that of a Field Officer. The appellant unsuccessfully questioned the said order of reversion before the High Court who was of the view that the charge having been proved, there was no reason for the court to interfere. The present appeals, as mentioned earlier, assail the correctness of order dated 20th April, 2010 passed by the High Court in the writ petition, mentioned above, besides an order dated 16 th August, 2010 whereby the High Court dismissed the review petition filed by the appellant with a minor modification.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length who have taken us through the orders passed by the disciplinary authority, the appellate authority as also those passed by the High Court. Three distinct features have persuaded us to interfere with the quantum of punishment awarded to the appellant. The first and the foremost is the fact that according to the opinion rendered by the U.P. Sahkari Institutional Service Board, Lucknow, a copy whereof has been placed on record as Annexure-12, the duty to attest the khasra and khatauni by matching the same with the record of Lekhpal and to identify the farmer at the time of execution of the mortgage deed and other related documents, was enjoined upon the Field Officers of the bank in terms of Clauses 4 and 5, 3 referred to in the said communication and not on the manager of the bank. This position does not appear to have been disputed by even the respondent-bank. The second and equally important aspect that bears relevance to the question of quantum of punishment is the fact that the bank was not shown to have suffered any financial loss on account of the alleged misconduct committed by the appellant. While it is true that the investigation into the entire matter had started some time in the year 2004 yet it is not in dispute that by the time the appellant came to be suspended in the year 2006, the entire loan amount stood paid to the bank. The third and no less important is the fact that the bank has, according to the communications received from the Institutional Service Board, adopted different standards in awarding punishment for somewhat similar misconducts. Communication dated 20th February, 2009 from the Institutional Service Board to the Managing Director of the bank shows that for a similar misconduct of attesting a fake/wrong photograph on a loan application proved against one Brahmadeen Singh, also a Branch Manager of the respondent-bank, the latter had imposed a lesser punishment of stoppage of only two increments of the delinquent officer. In the case of misconduct committed by one Ravindra Kumar, Branch Manager, and the appellant herein the bank had proposed termination of the service as a punishment. This significant disparity in the matter of awarding of punishment between the appellant herein and others like Brahmadeen Singh has not been explained by the bank. Superadded to the above is the fact that the appellant 4 has since retired from service and is not said to have been involved in any other act of misconduct nor has he suffered any punishment during the course of his employment under the respondent-bank. We are in totality of the above circumstances inclined to interfere with the quantum of punishment awarded to the appellant, no matter quantum of punishment is generally speaking a matter that rests in the discretion of the disciplinary authority and courts are relatively slow in interfering with the same.
We accordingly allow these appeals, set aside the orders passed by the High Court and direct that the punishment of reversion awarded to the appellant shall stand substituted by the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. The appellant shall not however be entitled to payment of any differential amount for the period he remained reverted by reason of the reversion order passed by the disciplinary authority. All other benefits like continuity of service as Branch Manager for purposes of pension etc. shall however be admissible to him. No costs.
......................J. (T.S. THAKUR) ......................J. (KURIAN JOSEPH) NEW DELHI DATED 15th SEPTEMBER, 2015.5
ITEM NO.1 COURT NO.2 SECTION XI
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for
Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(s). 28455-28456/2011
(From the Judgment and order dated 16.08.2010 and 20.04.2010 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in Review Petition Defective No.328 of 2010 and Service Bench No.464 of 2010) RAJ PAL SINGH MALIK Petitioner(s) VERSUS U.P. SAHKARI GRAM VIKAS BANK LTD. &ORS. Respondent(s) (With appln.(s) for C/delay in filing SLP and C/delay in refiling SLP and interim relief and office report) Date : 15/09/2015 These petitions were called on for hearing today. CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. THAKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH For Petitioner(s) Mr. Jasbir Singh Malik,Adv.
Mr. nayan Nepal,Adv.
Mr. Milind Kumar,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Sunil Kumar Jain,Adv.
Mr. Akarsh Garg,Adv.
Mr. T.N. Durga Prasad,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Heard.
Delay condoned.
Leave granted.
In terms of the signed order, these appeals are allowed:
“We accordingly allow these appeals, set aside the orders passed by the High Court and direct that the punishment of reversion awarded to the appellant shall stand substituted by the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. The appellant shall not however be entitled to payment of any differential amount for the period he remained 6 reverted by reason of the reversion order passed by the disciplinary authority. All other benefits like continuity of service as Branch Manager for purposes of pension etc. shall however be admissible to him. No costs.” (MAHABIR SINGH) (VEENA KHERA) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER (Signed order is placed on the file)