General Manager Personnel Syndicate Bank & Ors Vs B S N Prasad (Supreme Court of India)
Conclusion: Respondent had already reached the age of superannuation and he worked under pressure, 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 the respondent was of a serious nature considering the fact that a very high standard of conduct was expected from a branch manager of a Bank. Considering the facts of case, a minor penalty, as provided in Regulation 4(e) of the Disciplinary Regulations, would be appropriate.
Held: In the instant case, the respondent was employed with the appellants-bank. An investigation was conducted against the appellant. Investigating Officer submitted a report against the appellant on the allegation that while working as the branch manager in the Mudigubba branch during the period between 11th June, 2007 and 03rd November, 2008, the respondent abused his position by making fictitious debits to crop insurance account narrating the credit to various Syndicate Kisan Credit Cards (SKCC) accounts. He fraudulently withdrew the amounts by debiting the SKCC head without the borrowers’ knowledge. The allegation against him was that he made fictitious debits/releases under SKCC accounts and, in certain cases, exceeded the sanctioned limit. He dishonestly obtained additional withdrawals from certain customers by deceiving them. Another allegation was that he sanctioned a vehicle loan to a borrower, which was a Non-Performing Asset (in short, ‘NPA’), in violation of the guidelines. In collusion with two other persons (Shri A Nagireddy and Shri M Ramakrishna), he fraudulently siphoned off ₹ 70,000/-. He misappropriated a sum of ₹ 9,000/- received by the branch under the debt waiver scheme to the SKCC account of one Shri Nagaraju. It was alleged that the respondent had committed many illegalities and irregularities, which tarnished the fair image of the Syndicate Bank. A disciplinary inquiry was conducted against the respondent. Disciplinary Authority dismissed the respondent from the service of Syndicate Bank with immediate effect for committing the breach of Regulation 3(1) read with Regulation 24 of Syndicate Bank Officer Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations 1976 (for short ‘the Regulations’).On appeal. It was well settled that the exercise of powers by the disciplinary authority was 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 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. The respondent was employed in the appellant bank on 5th August, 1985 and had an unblemished record for more than 21 years till 11th June 2007. Under Regulation 4 of Syndicate Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 , there was a provision for imposing minor penalties and major penalties. The respondent had already reached the age of superannuation. In our view, 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 the respondent 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 case, a minor penalty, as provided in Regulation 4(e) of the Disciplinary Regulations, would be appropriate. The penalty would 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.
