State Bank of India and Others vs Kh. Bobi Singh <BR> Kh. Bobi Singh Vs State Bank of India and Others

H.K. Sema, J.—Writ Appeal No. 155/1995 has been preferred by the State Bank of India, and Writ Appeal No. 109/1995 has been preferred by the writ petitioner. In both the Writ Appeals, the impugned order dated September 1, 1995 passed by the learned single Judge in C.R. No. 1868/90/ 675/90 has been assailed.

We have heard Mr. Y. Imo Singh, learned counsel for the Appellant in W.A. No. 155/1995 and Mr. Kerani Singh, learned counsel for the respondents. We have also heard Mr. M.S. Jayanta, learned counsel for the Appellant in W.A. No. 109/95 and Mr. Y. Imo Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.

Facts leading to the filing of the present Writ Appeals may be summarily recited strictly for the purpose of disposal of these two Writ Appeals.

Writ petitioner Shri Kh. Bobi Singh was serving in State Bank of India as Branch Manager in Chandel at the relevant time. He was chargesheeted with Over-drafts disbursement of large number of loans amounting to Rs. 10 Lakhs by misusing official position as Branch Manager by extending undue financial accommodation to various persons indiscriminately by ignoring the instruction given to him in writing and without prior approval of this Controlling Authority and also against the norms and Rules of the State Bank of India. He was chargesheeted with two charges, and seven allegations were levelled against him under the said charge by an order dated August 11, 1985. Thereafter, Appellant was placed under suspension. A show-cause notice has been served on him. Enquiry Officer was appointed, and the departmental proceeding started against him.

After completing of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted its report on October 16, 1987 finding the appellant guilty on all the allegations except allegation Nos. 5 and 6. Thereafter, he was removed from service by an order dated April 29, 1988 passed by the Chief General Manager (Appointing Authority). Being aggrieved he filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority which was also rejected on July 3, 1990. Hence the writ petition.

The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition solely following the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Union of India and Ors. v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, reported in Union of India and others Vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, According to the learned Judge, since a copy of the Enquiry report has not been served upon the writ petitioner, it amounts to denial of natural justice, and the impugned order of removal is not sustainable in law and following the principle laid down in the Ramzan Khan''s case (supra), the respondents were directed to continue with the proceeding in accordance with law from the stage of the supply of the Enquiry Report by quashing the impugned order dated April 29, 1988.

With due respect to the learned single Judge, we are unable to accept the appreciation of the law laid down in Ramzan Khan''s case by the learned single Judge.

In Union of India and Ors., v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan,(supra) it has been categorically stated in para 17 of its Judgment that the law laid down in Ramzan Khan''s case shall have prospective application, and no punishment imposed shall be open to challenge on this ground. This would show the law laid down in Ramzan Khan''s case of necessity of furnishing a copy of the enquiry report would be effective only from November 20, 1990, and it will have no retrospective operation with regard to the impugned order passed on April 29, 1988 which has been assailed in C.R. No.675/1990 in 1991.

In Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad, Vs. Karunakar, etc. etc., the Constitutional Bench of the Apex Court has again considered the matter at length and had reiterated the view taken in Ramzan Khan''s case (supra) and held that, it is applicable prospectiyely w.e.f November 20, 1990. Therefore, any order of punishment passed before that date would not be challengeable on the ground that there was a failure to furnish the Enquiry Report to the delinquent employee. In other words, the proceeding pending in Courts in respect of orders of punishment passed prior to November 20, 1990 will have to be decided according to the law that prevailed prior to the said date and not according to the law laid down in Mohd. Ramzan Khan''s case.

In this view of the matter, the views taken by the learned single Judge cannot be said to be a correct appreciation of law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid cases.

It is however, contended by Mr. S. Jayanta, learned counsel for the appellant in Writ Appeal No. 109/1995 that the respondents have passed the impugned order in violation of proviso to Rule 50 of the State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules, (herein after the rules) inasmuch as the Disciplinary Authority has not recommended for imposing of major penalties specified in Clauses e, f, g and h of Rule 49.

To dispose of this argument, it will be useful to refer to Rule 49 and Proviso to Rule 50.

Rule 49 prescribed minor penalties and major penalties. We are concerned with major penalties in the case at hand.

It reads:-

MAJOR PENALTIES :-

"(e) reduction to a lower grade or post, or to a lower stage in a time scale;

(f) compulsory retirement;

(g) removal from service;

(h) dismissal.''

Further Proviso to Rule 60 of the rules reads :-

''Provided that where the Disciplinary Authority is lower in rank than the Appointing Authority in respect of the category of employees to which the, employees belong no order imposing any of the major penalties specified, in Clauses (e), (f), (g) and (h) of Rule 49 shall be made except by the Appointing Authority or any authority higher than it on the recommendations of Disciplinary Authority.''

According to Mr. Jayanta, since there is no recommendation of the Disciplinary Authority for imposing a major punishment specified in Clauses (e), (f), (g) and (h) of Rule 49, the impugned order dated April 29, 1988 imposing major penalties on the writ appellant was not sustainable in law.

We are unable to accept this contention of Mr. Jayanta, because a fascicule reading of Rule 49 and Proviso to Rule 50 in our view the recommendation by the Disciplinary Authority as visualised under the Proviso would not be applicable in the present case. Because, in the case at hand, the Appointing Authority is also a Disciplinary Authority and the punishment is given by the Appointing Authority. A perusal of the impugned order dated April 29, 1988 would clearly show that major penalty was imposed by the Chief General Manager, who is also the Appointing Authority. This contention of Mr. Jayanta, therefore, fails.

Next it is contended by Mr. Jayanta that, major punishment imposed on the appellant is disproportionate to the gravity of proved misconduct. In this connection, the learned counsel for the appellant has referred to Bhagat Ram Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Others, The gravity of misconduct must be measured in terms of the nature of misconduct. In the instant case, we would think that a misconduct involving Rs. 10 Lakhs overdrafts by the Branch Manager of the Bank is grave enough to have his service removed, after proper enquiry.

For the reasons aforestated, the W.A. No. 109/1995 filed by the writ petitioner is dismissed and W.A. No. 155/1995 filed by the State Bank of India is allowed. The order dated September 1, 1995 passed by the learned single Judge is set aside. Consequently, C.R. No. 675/1990 filed by the petitioner stands dismissed. Parties are asked to bear their own costs.

There has been some delay in disposing of these writ appeals due to long intervening winter vacation. The delay is however, regretted.