SHIVARAJ V.PATIL - (1.) THE appellant was an officer in the Allahabad Bank when disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him on account of certain alleged irregularities. Following charges were framed against him:- ARTICLE -1 That the said Shri K.N. Gupta while functioning as manager during the period from March, 1983 to April, 1986, allowed advances to various borrowers without observing the norms procedure laid down from time to time by head office. Due to his negligence bank's money is in jeopardy. Out of good number of irregular advances, few cases are taken hereafter. Advances for pumpsets have been allowed under minor irrigation loan scheme - (1) without observing the requirement of possessing the minimum land holding by the borrowers. Few cases having such irregularities are as follows :- JUDGEMENT_322_JT3_2003Html1.htm 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:- JUDGEMENT_322_JT3_2003Html2.htm c) Under minor irrigation scheme advances for electric tube well/pump set have been allowed without verification of electricity. Few examples are as follows :- JUDGEMENT_322_JT3_2003Html3.htm ARTICLE -II That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the Yusufpur branch of the Allahabad Bank as Manager the said Sri K. N. Gupta allowed advances to small borrowers under small loan scheme and did not obtain the relative bills. As such the end use of the loan amount was not ascertained. Few examples are as follows :- JUDGEMENT_322_JT3_2003Html4.htm ARTICLE - III That during the period from march, 1983 to April, 1986 while functioning as manager in the Yusufpur branch of Allahabad bank the said Shri K.N. Gupta ignoring the preliminary norms of bank's financing did not obtain no dues certificate from other financing institutions. Few examples are as follows:- Name of the Date of Amount of Borrower Advance Advance Sri Ram Javit 22.6.84 Rs.9000.00 Sri Janamjaya 14.3.86 Rs.4750.00 Singh ARTICLE - IV That the said Sri K.N. Gupta while functioning as Manager during the period from March, 1983 to April, 1986 allowed advance of Rs. 25,000/- under SEEUT scheme to Sri Shashi Kumar Upadhyay on 30.3.1984 for purchase of Tempo Taxi. Again the finance was allowed to Sri J.P. Pandey on the same vehicle without adjusting the outstanding in the loan amount of Sri Shashi Kumar Upadhyay. He has thus jeopardized bank's money. ARTICLE - V That during the aforesaid period from March, 1983 to April 1986 while functioning in the Yusufpur branch of the bank as manager the said Shri K.N. Gupta allowed advances to such borrowers just for extending them the benefit of subsidy money, few such examples are as follows :- Name of the Date of Amount of Borrower Advance Advance Smt. Ugani Devi 1.3.86 Rs 4250.00 Sri Kapoor Chand 27.3.86 Rs.4750.00 Singh Yadav By this aforesaid negligence and irregular action Sri Gupta has violated the Rules 3(1), and 3(3) of Allahabad Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 which amounts to misconduct under Rule 24 of the aforesaid regulations."
(2.) 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 levelled against him amounted to any misconduct, (c) the findings of the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority were perverse and (d) that the punishment of removal awarded was wholly disproportionate to the charges levelled against him. The High Court, on consideration of the material placed before it and having regard to the submissions made on behalf of either side, held against the appellant on all the points. However, as regards the point relating to awarding of disproportionate punishment, following the judgment of this Court in State Bank of India and Ors. v. Samerendra Kishore Endow and Anr.1, the High Court was of he view that imposition of appropriate punishment was within the discretion and judgment of the disciplinary authority; it was not open to the High Court or the Administrative Tribunal to interfere with the quantum of punishment exercising power of judicial review. Hence, in this appeal the appellant has called in question the validity and correctness of the impugned order. On 8.11.1996, this Court ordered issue of notice limited to the question of the nature of the punishment to be imposed on the appellant and the respondents were directed to produce the confidential reports of the appellant. On 5.5.1997, leave was granted and the appeal was allowed. On 2.3.1998, this Court allowed the review petition filed by the respondents observing that there was an error apparent on the face of the impugned order which had not taken into account the settled position of law as profounded by this Court in State Bank of India Ors. v. Samerendra Kishore Endow and Anr. (supra). After setting aside the order dated 5.5.1997, while allowing the review petition, this Court directed that the special leave petition be placed for consideration afresh before an appropriate bench in the normal course. Thereafter, on 27.4.1998, leave was granted again, it is how the appeal came up for hearing before us. The learned counsel for the appellant, confining his argument to the quantum of 1. JT 1994 (1) SC 217 : (1994) 2 SCC 537 punishment, urged that the appellant was initially appointed as clerk in the respondent-bank on 3 2.1959 and because of his hard work, devotion to duty and integrity, he was promoted to the officer cadre on 24.10.1973; from time to time, he rose in the hierarchy; his competency, merit and ability are well-reflected in the records; he had put in more than 30 years' unblemished service; the irregularities found against him do not reflect about his misconduct or any dishonest intention or misappropriation 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 and Ors. v. Samerendra Kishore Endow and 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 Rs. 45,000/- in all which could not be recovered from borrowers and could be deducted from his retirement benefits.
(3.) 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 against the appellant, the punishment imposed on him was quite justified. Under the circumstances, the impugned order may not be disturbed. We have carefully examined the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. The High Court did not go into the question as to whether the order of removal of the appellant from service was grossly disproportionate in view of the decision of this Court in State Bank of India and Ors. v. Samerendra Kishore Endow and Anr. (supra).;