SC: Merely because employee stood superannuated, it will not absolve him from the misconduct which he had committed in discharge of his duties [Read Judgment]

The Division Bench of the Supreme Court consisting of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S. Oka, while hearing an appeal, opined that merely because the employee stood superannuated in the meanwhile, will not absolve him from the misconduct which he had committed in discharge of his duties. The Bank employee always holds the position of trust where honesty and integrity are the sine qua non, but it would never be advisable to deal with such matters leniently.

Facts

The respondent employee joined service as a clerk­cum-typist and while in service committed serious irregularities, was placed under suspension. He was later served with the charge­sheet along with the statement of allegation. After the disciplinary inquiry was conducted, the inquiry officer found the charges proved. In consequence thereof, the respondent was dismissed from   service and the appellate authority also rejected the appeal preferred by the respondent employee.

Procedural History

A reference was made for adjudication by the appropriate Government under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (“Act 1947”). U/s 11A of the Act 1947, the Tribunal observed that the punishment awarded to the respondent employee of dismissal is not commensurate with the charge levelled against him and accordingly substituted the punishment of dismissal with an order of reinstatement after lowering down of two stages in his basic salary that he was getting at the time of his dismissal.  It was also held that there will be no payment of salary and allowances for the period of his suspension-save and except payment of subsistence allowance. Being dissatisfied, the appellant filed a writ petition which the learned Single Judge dismissed. This was again challenged at the instance of the appellant in Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court, which upheld the finding returned by the Tribunal and confirmed by the learned Single Judge.

Observations of the Court

The Bench observed that:

“The finding of guilt recorded by the inquiry officer in his report was confirmed at all later stages by the disciplinary/appellate authority and even after judicial scrutiny by the Division Bench in the impugned judgment but still refrained from interference on the premise that the employee had superannuated in the year 2007. Looking into seriousness of the nature of allegations levelled against the respondent employee, the punishment of dismissal inflicted upon him in no manner could be said to be shockingly disproportionate which would have required to be interfered with by the Tribunal in exercise of its power u/s 11A of the Act 1947. At the same time, merely because the employee stood superannuated in the meanwhile, will not absolve him from the misconduct which he had committed in discharge of his duties and looking into the nature of misconduct which he had committed, he was not entitled for any indulgence. The Bank employee always holds the position of trust where honesty and integrity are the sine qua non, but it would never be advisable to deal with such matters leniently.”

Judgment

The interference made by the Tribunal and the High Court in the impugned judgment was set aside.

Case Name: United Bank of India v. Bachan Prasad Lall

Citation: CIVIL APPEAL NO. 2949 OF 2011

Bench: Justice Ajay Rastogi, Justice Abhay S. Oka

Decided on:11^th February 2022

Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com

Picture Source :