C.A.No.4394 of 2010
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.4394 OF 2010
Boloram Bordoloi …..Appellant
Versus
Lakhimi Gaolia Bank & Ors. …..Respondents
J U D G M E N T
R. Subhash Reddy, J.
1. This civil appeal is filed by the appellant in Writ Appeal
No.361 of 2008 on the file of Gauhati High Court, aggrieved by
the order dated 03.04.2009. By the aforesaid order, the order
dated 08.06.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ
Petition No.219 of 2006 was confirmed. The learned Single
Judge, while confirming the order of compulsory retirement in
disciplinary proceedings initiated against the appellant, has held
that withholding of service benefits as well as pensionary dues to
1
C.A.No.4394 of 2010
the appellant is illegal and issued directions to pay the retiral
benefits.
2. The appellant was the Manager of the first respondentbank. On the basis of certain allegations levelled against him,
disciplinary proceedings were initiated and charge memo dated
18.06.2004 was issued. The substance of the charges is
extracted in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. In
view of the reply filed by him on 15.07.2004, denying the
charges, the respondentbank having not satisfied with the
explanation, has decided to order departmental enquiry against
the appellant. The Enquiry Officer, after completing the enquiry
by appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record,
has held that all the charges, i.e. charge nos.1 to 5, framed
against the appellant were proved. In view of the findings
recorded by the Enquiry Officer, the respondentbank has
proposed to inflict the punishment of compulsory retirement on
the appellant. Based on the findings recorded in the
departmental enquiry, has passed order imposing the
punishment of “compulsory retirement” from service. The
2
C.A.No.4394 of 2010
appellant was unsuccessful before the departmental appellate
authority, i.e., Board of Directors of the Bank and the appellate
authority has dismissed his appeal confirming the order of the
disciplinary authority. Challenging the order of the disciplinary
authority imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement, as
confirmed by the appellate authority, the appellant approached
the High Court by filing Writ Petition (C) No.219 of 2006 before
the Gauhati High Court. The learned Single Judge vide detailed
judgment and order dated 08.06.2007 has not interfered with the
order of compulsory retirement but at the same time has found
that withholding of the service benefits including pensionary
dues was illegal and issued directions for payment of such
benefits to the appellant. As against the order of the learned
Single Judge, the appellant has preferred Writ Appeal No.361 of
2008. The Division Bench of the High Court, by the impugned
order, has dismissed the same by confirming the order of the
learned Single Judge.
3
C.A.No.4394 of 2010
3. We have heard Sri Parthiv Goswami, learned counsel for
the appellant and Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing
for the respondentbank.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has mainly contended
that after completion of enquiry, even before furnishing a copy of
enquiry report, the disciplinary authority has issued show cause
notice dated 30.07.2005 vide Ref.
No.LBG/I&V/PP&PA/154/08/200506 by indicating proposed
punishment of compulsory retirement. It is submitted that such
conclusion arrived at by the disciplinary authority even before
the service of enquiry report, is illegal. To buttress his
submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on judgment
of this Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL,
Hyderabad & Ors. v. B. Karunakar & Ors. (1993) 4 SCC 727
and the judgment of this Court in the case of State Bank of
India & Ors. v. Mohammad Badruddin (2019) 16 SCC 69.
Further submission of the learned counsel was that the
disciplinary authority has not recorded any reasons in the order
dated 29.08.2005 while imposing the punishment of compulsory
4
C.A.No.4394 of 2010
retirement and similarly the appellate authority has dismissed
the appeal without recording reasons. Lastly, it is submitted by
learned counsel that the punishment imposed is disproportionate
to the gravity of charges, as such, prayed for setting aside the
impugned orders.
5. On the other hand, Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel
appearing for the respondentbank, by taking us to the charges
framed against the appellant and the findings recorded by the
Enquiry Officer, has submitted that the charges framed against
the appellant are grave and serious and in view of the proved
misconduct of the appellant who was working as a Manager in
the bank, the order of compulsory retirement was passed by the
disciplinary authority. It is submitted that having regard to
charges framed against the appellant, punishment imposed
cannot be said to be disproportionate. Further it is submitted
that after enquiry is completed it is always open for the
disciplinary authority to indicate the punishment in the show
cause notice, by enclosing a copy of the Enquiry Report. It is
submitted that the respondents have followed procedure
5
C.A.No.4394 of 2010
contemplated under the Rules and the procedure adopted is in
conformity with the ratio laid down by this Court in the case of
Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad (supra). It is submitted
that having regard to facts of the case, the judgment in the case
of Mohammad Badruddin (supra) has no application to support
the case of the appellant.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we have
perused the impugned order, the order of the learned Single
Judge and other material placed on record.
7. The appellant was working as a Manager of the
respondentbank. A perusal of the charges, which are held to be
proved by the Enquiry Officer, reveal that he has sanctioned and
disbursed loans without following the due procedure
contemplated under law and also there are allegations of
misappropriation, disbursing loans irregularly in some instances
to (a) units without any shop/business; (b) more than one loan to
members of same family etc. The Enquiry Officer, after
considering oral and documentary evidence on record, has held
that all the charges are proved. Based on the findings recorded
6
C.A.No.4394 of 2010
by Enquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority has tentatively
decided to impose punishment of compulsory retirement.
Disciplinary authority has issued show cause notice dated
30.07.2005 by enclosing a copy of the enquiry report. In
response to the show cause notice, the appellant has submitted
his comments vide letter dated 16.08.2005 indicating that due to
work pressure some operational lapses have occurred. Further
he has also pleaded that if the bank has sustained any loss due
to his fault, he is ready to bear such loss from his own source.
After filing the response to the show cause notice, order is passed
by disciplinary authority imposing punishment of compulsory
retirement. After Enquiry Officer records his findings, it is
always open for the disciplinary authority to arrive at tentative
conclusion of proposed punishment and it can indicate to the
delinquent employee by enclosing a copy of the enquiry report.
Though the learned counsel for the appellant has argued that
even before tentative conclusion is arrived at by the disciplinary
authority, the enquiry report has to be served upon him, but
there is no such proposition laid down in the judgment of this
7
C.A.No.4394 of 2010
Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad
(supra). In the aforesaid judgment of this Court it is held that
delinquent employee is entitled to a copy of the enquiry report of
the enquiry officer before the disciplinary authority takes a
decision on the question of guilt of the delinquent. Merely
because a show cause notice is issued by indicating the proposed
punishment it cannot be said that disciplinary authority has
taken a decision. A perusal of the show cause notice dated
30.07.2005 itself makes it clear that along with the show cause
notice itself enquiry report was also enclosed. As such, it cannot
be said that the procedure prescribed under the rules was not
followed by respondentbank. We are of the view that the
judgment of this Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL,
Hyderabad (supra) is not helpful to the case of the appellant.
Further, it is well settled that if the disciplinary authority accepts
the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and passes an order,
no detailed reasons are required to be recorded in the order
imposing punishment. The punishment is imposed based on the
findings recorded in the enquiry report, as such, no further
8
C.A.No.4394 of 2010
elaborate reasons are required to be given by the disciplinary
authority. As the departmental appeal was considered by the
Board of Directors in the meeting held on 10.12.2005, the
Board’s decision is communicated vide order dated 21.12.2005 in
Ref. No.LGB/I&V/Appeal/31/02/200506. In that view of the
matter, we do not find any merit in the submission of the learned
counsel for the appellant that orders impugned are devoid of
reasons.
8. Even, the last submission of the learned counsel for the
appellant that the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the
gravity of charges, also cannot be accepted. The charges framed
against the appellant in the departmental enquiry are serious
and grave. If we look at the response, in his letter dated
16.08.2005, to the show cause notice issued by the disciplinary
authority, it is clear that he has virtually admitted the charges,
however, tried to explain that such lapses occurred due to work
pressure. Further he went to the extent of saying – he is ready to
bear the loss suffered by the bank on account of his lapses. The
manager of a bank plays a vital role in managing the affairs of
9
C.A.No.4394 of 2010
the bank. A bank officer/employee deals with the public money.
The nature of his work demands vigilance with the inbuilt
requirement to act carefully. If an officer/employee of the bank
is allowed to act beyond his authority, the discipline of the bank
will disappear. When the procedural guidelines are issued for
grant of loans, officers/employees are required to follow the same
meticulously and any deviation will lead to erosion of public trust
on the banks. If the manager of a bank indulges in such
misconduct, which is evident from the charge memo dated
18.06.2004 and the findings of the enquiry officer, it indicates
that such charges are grave and serious. Inspite of proved
misconduct on such serious charges, disciplinary authority itself
was liberal in imposing the punishment of compulsory
retirement. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the
punishment imposed in the disciplinary proceedings on the
appellant, is disproportionate to the gravity of charges. As such,
this submission of the learned counsel for the appellant also
cannot be accepted.
10
C.A.No.4394 of 2010
9. For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal is devoid of merit,
same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
……………………………J.
[Ashok Bhushan]
……………………………J.
[R. Subhash Reddy]
……………………………J.
[M.R. Shah]
New Delhi.
February 08, 2021
11
