Exercise Of Powers By Disciplinary Authority Is Always Subject To Principles Of Proportionality & Fair Play: SC
The Supreme Court partly allowed a Civil Appeal of the General Manager Personnel, Syndicate Bank against an employee who was dismissed from his service.
The Supreme Court reiterated that the exercise of powers by the disciplinary authority is always subject to principles of proportionality and fair play.
The Court was deciding a Civil Appeal filed by the General Manager Personnel, Syndicate Bank against an employee who was dismissed from his service.
The two-Judge Bench of Justice Abhay S. Oka and Justice Augustine George Masih enunciated, “It is well settled that the exercise of powers by the disciplinary authority is always subject to principles of proportionality and fair play. In the facts of the case, the financial loss caused to the appellant was reimbursed. The respondent, at every stage, fairly accepted his mistakes. The respondent, while replying to the notice and the letters addressed to him by the appellant, repeatedly pointed out that he had to deal with more than 4,800 SKCC accounts during a short period of 60 days. Therefore, he worked under pressure all along. Moreover, he stated that he was in short receipt of crop insurance claims pertaining to 2,500 farmers to the extent of ₹ 50 lakhs. Therefore, the farmers and political leaders pressurized him.”
AOR Hetu Arora Sethi represented the Appellants while AOR Bela Maheshwari represented the Respondent.
Brief Facts
The Respondent was employed with the Appellants (Syndicate Bank) as a clerk and in due course, he was promoted as a Branch Manager. Thereafter, an investigation was conducted against him and the Investigating Officer submitted a report against him. After issuing notices, the Bank issued a chargesheet to him alleging that while working as the Branch Manager, he abused his position by making fictitious debits to crop insurance account narrating the credit to various Syndicate Kisan Credit Cards (SKCC) accounts. It was further alleged that he fraudulently withdrew the amounts by debiting the SKCC head without the borrowers' knowledge. He also alleged to have dishonestly obtained additional withdrawals from certain customers by deceiving them.
Another allegation was that the Respondent sanctioned a vehicle loan to a borrower which was a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) in violation of the guidelines. It was alleged that he committed many illegalities and irregularities, which tarnished the fair image of the Syndicate Bank. Resultantly, a disciplinary inquiry was conducted against him and the charges against him were proved as per the Inquiry Officer. Hence, he was dismissed from the service by the Disciplinary Authority. Being aggrieved, he preferred an Appeal and the Appellate Authority confirmed the Disciplinary Authority’s Order. On filing a Writ Petition, the Single Judge set aside the Orders of the authorities. This was challenged before the Division Bench and the Bank’s Appeal was dismissed. Therefore, the Bank approached the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court in view of the above facts, observed, “It is well settled that an acquittal in a criminal case is no ground to exonerate a delinquent in disciplinary proceedings as the standard of proof differs in these proceedings. It is well settled that the adequacy of the evidence adduced during disciplinary inquiry cannot be gone into in writ jurisdiction.”
The Court further noted that the Bank officers are expected to maintain a higher standard of honesty, integrity, and conduct.
“Merely because advice was rendered to the respondent, it does not take away the right of the appellant employer to initiate disciplinary proceedings. The advice was not rendered by the Disciplinary Authority. Moreover, all the imputations forming part of the charge sheet were not part of the letter dated 30th April, 2009”, it said.
The Court was of the view that the penalty of dismissal was disproportionate to the misconduct established against the Respondent and his unblemished career for a long time, however, fact remains that the misconduct alleged and proved against him was of a serious nature considering the fact that a very high standard of conduct is expected from a branch manager of a Bank.
“Considering the facts of the case, we are of the view that a minor penalty, as provided in Regulation 4(e) of the Disciplinary Regulations, would be appropriate. The penalty will be of reducing the respondent to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for a period of one year, without cumulative effect and not adversely affecting his pension”, it added.
Accordingly, the Apex Court partly allowed the Appeal, quashed the impugned Judgments and Orders, and modified the penalty.
Cause Title- The General Manager Personnel Syndicate Bank & Ors. v. B S N Prasad (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 89)
Appearance:
Appellants: AOR Hetu Arora Sethi and Advocate Rahul Jain.
Respondent: AOR Bela Maheshwari, Advocates Seshagiri Vadlamani, and Ananya Kukreti.
