Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/ vs Rabin Chandra Sarma on 6 August, 2024
Author: Suman Shyam
Bench: Chief Justice, Suman Shyam
Page No.# 1/11
GAHC010006612017
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/11/2018
CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA
Represented by its Chief General
Manager, CENTRAL OFFICE, CHANDERMUKHI, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI
21
2: ZONAL MANAGER/ DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY
ZONAL OFFICE
CENTRAL BANK BUILDING
G.S. ROAD
BHANGAGARH
GUWAHATI
3: REGIONAL MANAGER
REGIONAL OFFICE
CHANDRABHAVAN
NEHRU PARK ROA
VERSUS
RABIN CHANDRA SARMA
RESIDENT OF VILL ASHOK PATH, H.No. 1, BASISTHA ROAD, BELTOLA,
GUWAHATI
For the Appellant : Mr. M. Sharma, Advocate.
Ms. S. Islam, Advocate.
For the Respondent : Mr. K. H. Choudhury, Sr. Advocate.
Mr. Sk. Muktar, Advocate.
Page No.# 2/11
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMAN SHYAM
Date of hearing : 31.07.2024
Date of judgment : 06.08.2024.
JUDGMENT & ORDER (CAV)
(Suman Shyam,J)
This intra court appeal preferred by the Bank is directed against the judgment
and order dated 13.07.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge in W(C)
No.1319/2009 filed by the respondent/writ petitioner assailing the order of penalty of
dismissal from service dated 19.11.2007 imposed upon him. By the impugned
judgment and order dated 13.07.2017 the learned Single Judge had remanded the
matter back to the disciplinary authority for the purpose of taking a fresh decision on
the punishment to be imposed upon the respondent/writ petitioner which ought to
be proportionate to his misconduct.
2. The facts and circumstances of the case, leading to the filing of this appeal,
briefly stated, are that while working as the Branch Manager of Bokulia Branch of the
appellant Bank, a disciplinary enquiry was initiated against the respondent/writ
petitioner on the basis of memorandum of charge dated 02.03.2007, levelling certain
allegations against him. The four charges brought against the writ petitioner on the
basis of charge-sheet dated 07.05.2007 are as follows :-
Page No.# 3/11
"Charge No.1 :- Shri Sarma, as Branch Manager violated/disobeyed the
instructions of his higher authority in handling advance portfolio.
Charge No.2 :- Shri Sarma committed serious financial anomalies in
sanctioning and disbursing loans in 173 CKCC accounts at the branch
jeopardizing the pecuniary interest of the bank when his lending powers were
ceased by his higher authority.
Charge No.3 :- Shri Sarma as Branch Manager in order to conceal his
misdeeds/financial irregularities in the aforesaid CKCC accounts did not report
to his higher authority about such loans through periodical control returns.
Charge No.4 :- Shri Sarma as Branch Manager acted illegally and
unauthorisedly in sanctioning and disbursing 173 CKCC loans involving a total
sum of Rs.42.05 lacs which amount is presumed to be a pecuniary loss to the
bank."
3. The statement of imputations annexed to the charge-sheet contained the
particulars of the allegations supporting the aforesaid charges.
4. The respondent filed his written statement denying the charges brought
against him. According to the respondent, he was under a genuine impression that
renewal and enhancement in the 'CKCC' loan limit, where the borrower had repaid
the earlier dues, is not a fresh sanction and hence, his power was not curtailed so as
to restrict disbursement of loan. It was also the stand of the respondent that during
the relevant time, the Branch was having a strength of only one Branch Manager and
only three other staff which was highly inadequate to handle 400 fresh cases of
Page No.# 4/11
CKCC loan. As such, in order to meet his target he had to discharge his duties under
such heavy workload. The respondent had further stated that in all the cases
mentioned in the charge-sheet he had obtained land holding certificate, non-
encumbrance certificate and valuation certificate from the Assistant Revenue Officer
as per the norms of the DLTC. On such ground the respondent had denied of having
acted in violation of the orders and instructions of the superior authorities while
sanctioning/disbursing the loans.
5. On 02.07.2007, a supplementary charge-sheet, based on further investigation
allegedly conducted by the Bank authorities in disbursement of loans under the
Bokulia Branch, had been served on the respondent. In the supplementary charge
No.1 it was alleged that despite curtailment of his lending power by the Regional
Manager, Upper Assam Region, the respondent had sanctioned a demand loan of
Rs.35,000/- to Shri Puspa Kalita against security of KVP of total Rs.50,000/- although as
per the lending policy, the Branch Manager did not have any power to sanction such
loan. Supplementary charge No.2 was to the effect that the respondent had
sanctioned similar demand loans to two borrowers viz., Gajendra Saikia and R. B.
Saha by jeopardizing the interest of the bank. In supplementary charge No.3 it was
alleged that the respondent had sanctioned loan for an amount of Rs.1.50 lakh in
favour of one Shri Arun Chandra Barik without issuing any sanction letter or
acknowledgment from the borrower. Moreover, the borrower was also not drawing
his salary from the Branch and even the collateral security of LIC policy was not
assigned in favour of the bank and repayment was not coming since December,
2006. Supplementary charge No.4 was to the effect that the respondent had
Page No.# 5/11
sanctioned two personal loans for an amount of Rs.1.00 lakh and Rs.50,000/-
respectively, in favour of Sri Bhaba Kanta Saikia and Sri Suren Rabha, despite
curtailment of his lending powers by the Regional Manager. Supplementary charge
No.5 was on account of the fact that the respondent had allegedly sanctioned and
disbursed loan amount of Rs.1.00 lakh in favour of one Shir Bhaba Rajbongshi in
violation of the lending policy norms of the bank.
6. In response to the supplementary charge-sheet also the respondent had
submitted written statement denying the allegations brought against him, thus
explaining his stand in the matter.
7. On conclusion of the departmental proceeding the enquiry officer had
submitted report dated 04.09.2007 holding that all the charges brought against the
respondent stood "fully proved". The disciplinary authority i.e. the Zonal Manager of
the appellant Bank, after considering the report of the Enquiry Officer and upon
accepting the findings recorded therein, had imposed the major penalty of "Dismissal
from Service which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment" upon
the respondent. Being aggrieved by the order of penalty dated 19.11.2007 the
respondent had approached this Court by filing WP(C) No.1319/2009 which was
disposed of by the learned Single Judge by judgment and order dated 13.07.2017,
which is under challenge in the present appeal preferred by the bank.
8. The learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the order of major penalty
dated 19.11.2007 did not indicate that the petitioner was responsible for causing any
financial loss to the Bank and therefore, the penalty of dismissal from service was an
Page No.# 6/11
extreme penalty, which was disproportionate to the allegations of misconduct
brought against the respondent. By taking note of the decision of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court rendered in the case of Om Kumar Vs. Union of India reported in
(2001) 2 SCC 386, wherein it has been laid down that in order to assess as to whether,
any administrative decision relating to imposition of penalty in a departmental
proceeding was arbitrary under Article 14 of the Constitution, Wednesbury principles
would be applicable and also by relying upon the law laid down in the case of B. C.
Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India reported in (1995)6 SCC 749 wherein, the Supreme
Court has held that when punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is found to
be shockingly disproportionate to the conscience of the Court/Tribunal, it would be
proper to appropriately mould a relief either by directing the disciplinary authority to
reconsider the penalty or, in exceptional cases, impose appropriate penalty with
cogent reasons therefor, the learned Single Judge has remanded the matter back to
the disciplinary authority for passing a fresh order of penalty within a period of three
months from the date of the order.
9. It would be significant to note herein that in the judgment and order dated
13.07.2017 there is no indication that the order of penalty of "Dismissal from Service
which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment" dated 19.11.2007
had been set aside. Notwithstanding the same, the matter has been remanded to
the Disciplinary Authority for reviewing the order of penalty. Be that as it may, from a
careful reading of the impugned judgment and order dated 13.07.2017 what is
apparent on the face of the record is that the learned Single Judge did not express
any opinion on the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer with regard to the articles
Page No.# 7/11
of charges but was merely of the opinion that it is not a case of deliberate adoption
of dubious means with the object of, either making personal financial gain or with the
intent of causing pecuniary loss to the Bank. Hence, the requirement to suitably
review the order of penalty imposed upon the respondent/writ petitioner was felt by
the learned Single Judge. If that be so, it would not be necessary for this Court to
examine the legality and validity of the enquiry proceeding. The only question that
would, therefore, arise for consideration by this Court in the present proceeding is as
to whether, the order of remand is in accordance with law or not.
10. During the course of hearing, Mr. M. Sharma, learned counsel for the
appellants has argued that there are a number of allegations brought against the
respondent which clearly shows that he had acted in utter violation of the rules,
regulations and the banking norms. Therefore, the respondent was clearly guilty of
serious misconduct. As such, submits Mr. Sharma, the major penalty of "Dismissal from
Service" with disqualification from future employment, in the facts and circumstances
of the case, was wholly justified. Mr. Sharma has, however, submitted in his usual
fairness that there is no material available on record to show that the bank had
suffered any pecuniary loss due to the transactions referred to in the two
memorandums of charges mentioned herein above.
11. Mr. K. H. Choudhury, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent has
argued that since the direction of the learned Single Judge is only to review and
reconsider the penalty imposed upon his client without interfering with the findings of
the Enquiry Officer, the present is not a fit case for interference with the impugned
Page No.# 8/11
judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge. Contending that his client
has been out of service since the year 2007 and therefore, at this point of time, his
post retiral dues is the only relief that he can reasonably expect since there is no
possibility of reinstatement in service, the learned senior counsel for the respondent
has argued that the view taken by the learned Single Judge in the impugned
judgment is a plausible one, in the facts and circumstances of the case and
therefore, the same does not call for any interference.
12. After considering the submissions made by learned counsel for both the sides
and upon going through the materials available on record, we find that although
there are some allegations brought against the respondent pertaining to his conduct
while acting as the Branch Manager of Bokulia Branch, which conduct, viewed from
the point of view of the Bank, might have far reaching implications in the matter of
proper administration of the Bank, yet, there can be no doubt about the fact that
there is no material brought to the notice of this Court indicating any pecuniary loss
having been suffered by the Bank due to the conduct of the respondent. In such
circumstances and taking note of the fact that the learned Single Judge has not
interfered with the findings of the Enquiry Officer recorded in the report dated
04.09.2007, we are also of the opinion that the extreme punishment of "Dismissal from
Service which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment" was too
harsh and can be considered as shockingly disproportionate to the nature of
misconduct alleged to have committed by the petitioner. Viewed from that angle,
we are convinced that the approach of the learned Single Judge, in remanding the
matter back to the disciplinary authority for consideration of any other punishment to
Page No.# 9/11
be imposed upon the respondent, is a reasonable approach and therefore, does not
call for interference by this Court.
13. Having held as above, we have also noticed that the learned Single Judge,
while remanding the matter back to the disciplinary authority, did not expressly set
aside the earlier order of penalty dated 19.11.2007. Unless the order dated 19.11.2007
is set aside the question of imposing any other lesser penalty upon the respondent
may not arise in the eyes of law.
14. A careful reading of Regulations 3 and 4 of the Central Bank of India Officer
Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 goes to show that the following
major penalties can be imposed upon an employee on the ground of misconduct :-
"Major penalties :
f) Save as provided for in (e) above, reduction to a lower stage in
the time scale of pay for a specified period, with further directions as to
whether or not the officer will earn increments of pay during the period
of such reduction and whether on the expiry of such period the
reduction will or will not have the effect of postponing the future
increments of his pay;
g) Reduction to a lower grade or post;
h) Compulsory retirement;
i) Removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for
future employment;
Page No.# 10/11
j) Dismissal which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future
employment."
15. From the above, it is apparent that the major penalty of "Dismissal which shall
ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment" is the harshest of all the major
penalties which can be imposed upon an employee of the Bank. In the present case,
since the learned Single Judge has observed that the aforesaid penalty imposed
upon the respondent/writ petitioner was disproportionate to the nature of
misconduct alleged against him and considering the fact that we did not find any
error in the approach of the learned Single Judge in adopting such a view, the order
of penalty dated 19.11.2007 must be held to be unsustainable in the eyes of law. The
same is accordingly set aside.
16. The Disciplinary Authority is directed to pass any other order of penalty save
and except the penalty of "Dismissal which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for
future employment" upon the respondent/writ petitioner. A fresh order of penalty, if
any, be passed within a period of one month from today. All consequences under
the order to be passed by the Disciplinary Authority, in terms our order, shall ensue
upon the respondent with immediate effect. It is, however, made clear that if no fresh
order of penalty is passed by the Disciplinary Authority, pursuant to our order, within
the period of 30 days from today, then in that event, it would be open for the
respondent to seek appropriate relief in the matter including making a prayer for
reinstatement in service if the same is permissible under the law.
With the above observations, this Writ Appeal stands disposed of.
Page No.# 11/11
There shall be no order as to cost.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
T U Choudhury
Comparing Assistant
