State Bank Of India And 3 Ors vs Hemendra Nath Deka

A.S. Bopanna, CJ

The appellant is before this Court assailing the order dated 13.06.2017 passed in W.P.(C) No.5151/2011. The respondent herein was before the learned Single Judge in the said writ petition assailing the order dated 8.9.2009 whereby the disciplinary authority had imposed the punishment of reduction to four lower stages in the time scale of pay for two years period. The punishment was also with a further direction that he would not earn increment during the period of such reduction. Thus, the reduction will have the effect of postponing further increment of his pay. The petitioner had also assailed the order dated 24.2.2009, whereby the appeal before the appellate authority had been dismissed.

The learned Single Judge having taken into consideration all aspects of matter was of the opinion that the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the charge alleged and, therefore, has set aside the punishment and permitted appellant Management to consider imposition of a minor punishment commensurate to the charge alleged and proved against him.

The appellants, therefore, claiming to be aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge has filed this intra-court appeal.

We have heard Mr. S.S. Sharma, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. H.K. Buragohain, learned counsel for the appellants and Ms. N. Sultana, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the appeal papers.

The respondent herein who had joined service of the appellant Bank on 2.8.1979 was working as a Manager at the point when the disciplinary proceedings was initiated against him. The charge alleged against him is that he had kept the Branch closed unauthorisedly for 59 days and the details of the different dates on which the Branch had not been opened had been indicated in the charge-sheet and the list of imputations was enclosed.

The respondent herein had replied to the charge levelled and denied the charges alleged. In respect of the dates when he could not open the Branch or transact any business, the respondent through his reply had indicated the reasons since, according to him, the Branch being situated in Tuli Town of Nagalad was in a disturbed area and due to such insurgent activities, the Branch could not be kept open on such days when there was disturbance. In that regard, a detail reply dated 3.1.2007 was submitted.

The appellant herein not being satisfied with such reply had constituted the enquiry committee and the enquiry officer through the report of the preliminary hearing dated 27.04.2007 had held the respondent guilty of three of the charges and had exonerated him in all other respects. The disciplinary authority, through the order dated 8.9.2008 has imposed the punishment. The appeal filed by the respondent was dismissed by the appellate authority. It is in that background, the learned Single Judge has taken into consideration as to whether the action initiated against the respondent is justified and the punishment imposed is commensurate.

While referring to the charge alleged against the respondent and on taking note of the reply dated 3.1.2007 and also the consideration as made in the enquiry, the learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the nature of the allegation made and the explanation as put forth. In that regard, the learned Single Judge has taken note of the fact that Tuli area was a hot bed of insurgent activities in Nagaland and even to the situation that the telephone and other connectivity would not be available. In that light, the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that in the circumstance when the respondent was residing in the same building where the Branch was situated, there is no reason not to keep the Branch open if the situation was not otherwise. In that light, learned Single Judge though has ultimately approved the enquiry report, was of the opinion that the disciplinary authority was not justified in imposing the harsh punishment keeping in view the nature of the charge alleged and the explanation put forth as also the existing fact situation.

Learned counsel for the appellants while assailing the order of the learned Single Judge would contend that the disciplinary authority having taken into consideration the enquiry report has imposed the punishment. He contends that the Manager of a Branch is a responsible position and when he does not open the branch and transact business, such misconduct cannot be countenanced. In that light, it is contended that since the punishment which was appropriate was imposed, the learned Single Judge ought not to have lightly interfered with the same.

The learned counsel for the respondent would, however, seek to sustain the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

In the background of the consideration as made by the learned Single Judge and the contentions urged, we have at the outset referred to the enquiry report dated 27.04.2007. Firstly, it is to be taken note that the same is shown as a preliminary hearing and the dates of regular hearing have been mentioned. The enquiry report is in the nature of indicating the same itemwise and the enquiry officer has not drawn a report based on the charges alleged and the evidence recorded and, in that light, the manner in which he has reached the conclusion, is not indicated. If that be the position, when the disciplinary authority had passed the order dated 8.9.2009, the same does not disclose the manner of application of mind made by the disciplinary authority to the enquiry report based on which a conclusion has been reached to accept the finding of the enquiry officer. In that light, in a normal circumstance having noticed the same, it would have been appropriate to set aside and remit the matter for consideration. In such circumstance, when the learned Single Judge has himself thought it fit not to set aside the order dated 8.9.20009 in its entirety but has accepted the same and decided with regard to the proportionality of the punishment, we find it appropriate to limit the consideration to that aspect alone. In that light, the learned Single Judge has in fact appreciated the material on record to take note of the charge and arrived at the conclusion that the punishment as imposed is harsh, we are of the opinion that the same would not call for interference. What is also to be taken note in the present circumstance is that when we have noticed that the order passed by the disciplinary authority itself is faulty, in a normal circumstance, the matter ought to have been remitted. In the present circumstance, it is seen that the respondent has already retired from service on 31..12.2014 and at this stage, a reconsideration in any event would not be possible. That apart, even if the reduced punishment as ordered by the learned Single Judge is imposed, all that would arise is only with regard to the monetary consideration relating to the terminal or pensionary benefits depending on the option that has been exercised by the respondent. If that be the position, the conclusion reached by the learned Single Judge is justified in the instant case. We, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge.

Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit stands disposed of.