Case Law Details
Boloram Bordoloi Versus Lakhimi Gaolia Bank & Ors. (Supreme Court)
Conclusion: Punishment of compulsory retirement imposed in the disciplinary proceedings on assessee was not disproportionate to the gravity of charges and therefore, no detailed reasons were required to be recorded in the order imposing punishment.
Held: Assessee was working as a Manager of the Respondent-bank. A perusal of the charges, which were held to be proved by the Enquiry Officer, revealed that he had sanctioned and disbursed loans without following the due procedure contemplated under law and also there were 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, had held that all the charges were proved. Based on the findings recorded by Enquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority had tentatively decided to impose punishment of compulsory retirement. Assessee contended that withholding of service benefits as well as pensionary dues to assessee was illegal and issued directions to pay the retiral benefits. It was held that the charges framed against the assessee in the departmental enquiry were serious and grave. It was clear that he had 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 was ready to bear the loss suffered by the bank on account of his lapses. A bank officer/employee deals with the public money. If an officer/employee of the bank was allowed to act beyond his authority, the discipline of the bank would disappear. When the procedural guidelines were issued for grant of loans, officers/employees were required to follow the same meticulously and any deviation would lead to erosion of public trust on the banks. If the manager of a bank indulged in such misconduct, such charges were 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 could not be said that the punishment imposed in the disciplinary proceedings on assessee was disproportionate to the gravity of charges.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT
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 the appellant is illegal and issued directions to pay the retiral benefits.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
