Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/19 vs United Bank Of India And 5 Ors on 21 January, 2025
Page No.# 1/19
GAHC010063042017
2025:GAU-AS:578
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/54/2017
BITASHOK RAKSHIT
S/O. LT. DR. BANABEHARI RAKSHIT, R/O. MUKTI AUSHADHALAYA,
HOSPITAL ROAD, OPP. BANK OF INDIA, GOLAGHAT, P.O. and P.S.
GOLAGHAT, DIST. GOLAGHAT, ASSAM.
VERSUS
UNITED BANK OF INDIA and 5 ORS.
REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, 11 HEMANT BASU
SARANI, KOLKATA, PIN. 700001.
2:CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR UNITED BANK OF INDIA
11 HEMANT BASU SARANI KOLKATA PIN. 700001.
3:CHIEF MANAGER DISCIPLINARY and INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS DIVISION
UNITED BANK OF INDIA HEAD OFFICE
11 HEMANT BASU SARANI KOLKATA PIN. 700001.
4:GENERAL MANAGER HR and REVIEWING AUTHORITY
UNITED BANK OF INDIA 11 HEMANT BASU SARANI
KOLKATA PIN. 700001.
5:DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER HRM and APPELLATE AUTHORITY
UNITED BANK OF INDIA 11 HEMANT BASU SARANI
KOLKATA PIN. 700001.
6:ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER HRM and DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY
UNITED BANK OF INDIA 11 HEMANT BASU SARANI
KOLKATA PIN. 700001
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR.A BHATTACHARYA, MR.A BARUA,MR.P P DUTTA,MR.T J
MAHANTA
Advocate for the Respondent : , ,,
Page No.# 2/19
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR
Date of hearing : 21.01.2025
Date of Judgment: 21.01.2025
Judgment & order(Oral)
Heard Mr. T. J. Mahanta, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. P. P.
Dutta, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner. However,
none appears on behalf of the respondent United Bank of India(UBI).
2. The challenge in the present proceeding is to an order, dated
10.09.2013, issued by the Assistant General Manager-cum-disciplinary
authority imposing upon the petitioner, a penalty of reduction of basic pay
by 4(four) stages in the time scale of pay till superannuation with further
stipulation that no increment would be earned during the period. The
petitioner has also assailed the Inquiry Report as well as the orders passed
by the appellate authority and the reviewing authority.
3. The brief facts requisite for adjudication of the issue arising in the
present proceeding, is noticed as under:
The petitioner, herein, while functioning as the Branch Manager of
Mariani Branch of United Bank of India (UBI), was served with a Show
Cause Notice, dated 24.01.2013, leveling allegations against the petitioner
as Manager at Kamargaon Branch of United Bank of India(UBI), during his
tenure therein w.e.f. 09.10.2009 to 29.07.2011.
Page No.# 3/19
Vide the said Show Cause Notice, dated 24.01.2013, 2(two)
allegations came to be levelled against the petitioner pertaining to debits
being made from the accounts of the customers of United Bank of
India(UBI) towards payment of premium to TATA AIG for procuring policies
for the KCC account holders involved. However, the first allegation so
levelled against the petitioner, highlights that the amounts so deducted
were utilized for procuring policies from TATA AIG in the names of the
petitioner, herein, and another employee of the said Branch of United Bank
of India(UBI).
The second allegation pertains to debits made against 84 KCC
accounts for procuring policies from the TATA AIG in favour of the account
holders without obtaining the prior consent of the said borrowers. The said
allegation also reveals that transactions were so done by the petitioner
single-handedly.
The petitioner on receipt of the said Show Cause Notice, dated
24.01.2013, submitted his written statement in the matter on 25.03.2013,
denying the allegations so levelled against him. The petitioner also clarified
about the transactions so involved in the allegations levelled against him.
The disciplinary authority not being satisfied with the explanations as
advanced by the petitioner in his written statement of defence, proceeded
vide communication, dated 18.04.2013, to direct for holding of an inquiry
in the matter. For the purpose of the inquiry, an Inquiry Officer and a
Presenting Officer came to be so appointed. The Inquiry Officer held an
inquiry in the matter and on conclusion of the same, proceeded to submit
Page No.# 4/19
his Inquiry Report, vide communication, dated 08.08.2013, holding the
charges levelled against the petitioner vide the Show Cause Notice, dated
24.01.2013, to have been established.
A copy of the said Inquiry Report was also forwarded to the petitioner
by the disciplinary authority vide communication, dated 10.08.2013. The
petitioner vide his representation, dated 23.08.2013, dealt with the findings
of the Inquiry Officer and requested that the findings of the Inquiry Officer
in the Inquiry Report not being in consonance with the materials coming on
record, the same would not mandate an acceptance. However, the
disciplinary authority, on consideration of the Inquiry Report as well as the
representation submitted by the petitioner in the matter against the same;
proceeded vide order, dated 10.09.2013, to agree with the findings of the
Inquiry Officer and by concluding that the charges so levelled against him,
were established in the inquiry so held, proceeded to impose upon him, a
penalty of reduction of his basic pay by 4(four) stages in the time scale of
pay till superannuation with further stipulation that during the period of
currency of the said penalty, the petitioner would not earn any increment.
Being aggrieved, the petitioner submitted an appeal in the matter on
21.10.2013. The appellate authority on consideration of the appeal so
submitted by the petitioner, was pleased vide order, dated 25.02.2015, to
reject the same, upholding the penalty so imposed by the disciplinary
authority. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an application before the
reviewing authority on 06.04.2015. The reviewing authority by holding that
the petitioner had not brought on record any new material other than that
was so raised by him in his appeal; proceeded to reject the said application
Page No.# 5/19
so preferred by the petitioner.
4. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the present proceeding
before this Court.
5. Mr. Mahanta, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, by referring to
the first allegation as levelled against the petitioner, has submitted that the
debits involved in the matter from the accounts of the borrowers of United
Bank of India(UBI), was so done on 15.12.2009. It was contended by the
learned senior counsel that on 15.12.2009, it is an admitted position that
the petitioner was on leave, which leave was already applied by him much
prior to the date, in question. The learned senior counsel has further
submitted that the transaction involved towards the debits of the accounts
of the borrowers, in question, was so done by the Operation Officer of
Kamargaon Branch who was the in-charge of the Branch during the
absence of the petitioner, herein. Accordingly, it is submitted that no
misconduct in the matter is borne out against the petitioner.
6. Mr. Mahanta, learned senior counsel, has also submitted that the
petitioner was not instrumental in procuring a policy in his name from the
amounts so deducted from the accounts of the borrowers involved. The
learned senior counsel has further submitted that the petitioner had not
signed the concerned proposal form but had only signed the lead paper as
the Branch Manager of the said Branch of United Bank of India(UBI). The
learned senior counsel has further submitted that in the inquiry other than
the signature of the petitioner in the lead paper, the other signatures in the
proposal form, could not be established. The learned senior counsel has
Page No.# 6/19
also submitted that there being no material brought on record that the
petitioner had signed the proposal form, the charges so levelled against
him in the matter, cannot be sustained. However, the Inquiry Officer had
proceeded to hold the said allegations to be proved against the petitioner.
Accordingly, it is submitted that the conclusions of the Inquiry Officer with
regard to the first allegation so levelled against the petitioner, being
perverse; would call for an interference from this Court.
7. With regard to the second allegation as levelled against the petitioner,
Mr. Mahanta, learned senior counsel, has submitted that the debit so made
from the accounts of the borrowers involved was so done after verbal
consent was so taken from the borrowers concerned. It was further
submitted that there was no specific format for obtaining consent available
in the United Bank of India(UBI) at the relevant point of time and
accordingly, further there being no complaint raised by any of the
borrowers with regard to the debits made in their accounts for procuring
the policies from the TATA AIG, the second allegation would not be
sustainable against the petitioner, herein.
8. Mr. Mahanta, learned senior counsel, by referring to the Inquiry
Report submitted by the Inquiry Officer, has submitted that the Inquiry
Officer with regard to the first allegation had ignored the fact that the
debits involved, were so made on 15.12.2009, on which date, the
petitioner, admittedly, was absent.
9. As regards the findings and conclusions arrived at by the Inquiry
Officer with regard to the second allegation so levelled against the
Page No.# 7/19
petitioner, it is submitted by Mr. Mahanta, learned senior counsel, that the
allegation being to the extent that the debit so made from the accounts of
the borrowers involved being so made without any consent of the
borrowers; the petitioner having asserted during the inquiry that such debit
was made basing on the verbal consent of the borrowers; the same being
not disputed by examining the borrowers involved and further, there being
no complaint received from any of the borrowers with regard to such debit
so made from their accounts; the Inquiry Officer could not have recorded a
conclusion to the effect that such charge was established against the
petitioner, herein.
10. Mr. Mahanta, learned senior counsel, has further submitted that the
disciplinary authority without examining the contentions raised by the
petitioner in his representation, dated 23.08.2013, so preferred against the
Inquiry Report, proceeded to accept the conclusions so reached by the
Inquiry Officer in the matter and thereby, erred in imposing the penalty so
imposed upon the petitioner.
11. Mr. Mahanta, learned senior counsel, by referring to the orders passed
by the appellate authority and the reviewing authority, has submitted that
the orders would reflect clear non-application of mind to the contentions
raised before the said authorities by the petitioner in the matter. The
learned senior counsel, by referring to the Show Cause Notice, dated
24.01.2013, has further submitted that the same was served upon the
petitioner without there being a list of documents as well as a list of
witnesses annexed thereto. The learned senior counsel has, accordingly,
submitted that in the absence of a list of documents as well as a list of
Page No.# 8/19
witnesses, the petitioner was prejudiced in preferring an effective reply
against the allegations so levelled against him vide the said Show Cause
Notice, dated 24.01.2013.
12. It is further submitted by Mr. Mahanta, learned senior counsel, that
the said Show Cause Notice, dated 24.01.2013, not having been
accompanied with the list of documents; the prejudice being caused to the
petitioner, herein, the proceedings so held against the petitioner in the
matter, stood vitiated. In support of his submissions, Mr. Mahanta, has
relied upon upon the decision of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in
Babulal Das v. State of Assam & anr., reported in 2004 (3) GLR 372.
13. Mr. Mahanta, learned counsel for the petitioner, has also submitted,
that in the facts and circumstances involved; the penalty as imposed upon
the petitioner, is clearly disproportionate to the allegations levelled against
the petitioner and proved in the inquiry.
14. I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and also
perused the materials available on record.
15. At the outset, it is to be noticed that the debits so made from the
accounts of the borrowers, is an admitted position. The said debits having
come to the notice of the authorities of the respondent United Bank of
India(UBI) and it also being evident that the said deposits were also utilized
for procuring a policy from TATA AIG in the name of the petitioner, herein,
the disciplinary authority of the petitioner, proceeded to issue a Show
Cause Notice to the petitioner on 24.01.2013, invoking the provisions of
Page No.# 9/19
regulation 6 of the United Bank of India Officer, Employees Discipline and
Appeal Regulation, 1976. The charges as levelled against the petitioner,
being relevant is extracted hereinbelow:
"Articles of Charge:
During the tenure of your service as Manager at Bank's Kamargaon Branch from
09.10.2009 to 29.07.2011 you had committed the following irregular acts and
thereby failed to take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interest of the Bank
and discharge your duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence in
contravention of Regulation 3(1) and 3(3) of United Bank of India Officer Employees'
(Conduct) Regulations, 1976 constituting misconduct in terms of Regulation 24 of the
said Regulations.
A. On 15.12.2009, 67 (sixty seven) KCC accounts were debited @ Rs. 3,000/- each
amounting Rs. 2,01,000/- towards payment of premium to TATA AIG for policies of the
said KCC account holders. Out of the said amount Rs. 1,000/- was credited to
Marginal Deposit account and with the balance amount two demand drafts nos.
13664 & 13665 were issued for Rs: 1,01,000/- and Rs. 99,000/- respectively drawn on
Jorhat favouring TATA AIG LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED under Transaction No.
M 211627 dated 15.12.2009.
Later on it is revealed that instead of utilizing the said amount for the purpose of
TATA AIG policies of the said KCC account holders you had utilized the DD No. 13665
for Rs. 99,000/- by way of depositing the same with TATA AIG along with a proposal
form duly signed and affixed with your photograph for issuing a policy in your name
and DD No. 13664 for Rs. 1,01,000/- for issuing a policy in the name of Sri
Ranendrajit Barman, the then Officer (Operations) of Kamargaon Branch.
B. On 26.11.2010, 84 (eighty four) KCC accounts were debited @ Rs.3,000/- each
amounting Rs. 2,52,000/- and two drafts nos. 16271 & 16272 were issued for Rs.
1,26,000/- each drawn on Jorhat favouring TATA AIG under Transaction No. M160597
dated 26.11.2010. without any consent of the borrowers.
You had signed the relevant voucher single handedly despite present of other officer
in the branch and had verified the Transaction in the system using your User ID
PRITAS01 created and posted by User ID RAVIKA03
16. A perusal of the article of charge No. (A) would go to reveal that on
15.12.2009, Rs. 3,000/- each, was debited from 67 KCC accounts operated
in Kamargaon Branch of United Bank of India(UBI) and the amount so
debited, was utilized towards payment of premium for the policies obtained
Page No.# 10/19
from the TATA AIG. Out of the amount so debited, two demand drafts being
Nos. 13664 and 13665 were issued for an amount of 1,01,000/- and Rs.
99,000/-, respectively, to the said TATA AIG for procurement of policies in
the name of the petitioner, herein, as well as in the name of one
Ranendrajit Barman, the then Officer (Operations) of Kamargaon Branch of
United Bank of India(UBI). The demand draft No. 13665 for an amount of
Rs. 99,000/- was utilized for obtaining a policy of TATA AIG in the name of
the petitioner, herein.
17. The article of charge No. (B) reveals that an amount of Rs. 3,000/-
each was debited from 84 KCC accounts operated in United Bank of
India(UBI) and the same were so utilized for procuring the policies from the
TATA AIG. The said debits were said to have been so made without
obtaining the consent of the borrowers. It was further alleged against the
petitioner that he had single-handedly signed the relevant voucher by using
the transaction User ID PRITAS01. The written statement submitted by the
petitioner in the matter against the allegations levelled against him vide the
Show Cause Notice, dated 24.01.2013, having been not found to be
satisfactory by the disciplinary authority, an inquiry was directed to be held
against the petitioner in the matter. The Inquiry Officer on conclusion of the
inquiry, proceeded to submit his Inquiry Report on 08.08.2013, a copy of
which was also forwarded to the petitioner, herein.
18. The Inquiry Report being also under challenge in the present
proceeding, the same would call for an examination by this Court. A perusal
of the same would go to show that the Inquiry Officer for the purpose of
drawing his conclusion with regard to the allegations so levelled against the
Page No.# 11/19
petitioner, had relied upon the materials coming on record in the inquiry.
The Inquiry Officer with regard to the article of charge No.(A), had
recorded a conclusion that the demand draft No. 13665 for an amount of
Rs. 99,000/- dated 15.12.2009, was utilized for procuring a policy in the
name of the petitioner, herein. The proposal form was also concluded to
have been signed by the petitioner and his photograph was also affixed
thereon. It was further concluded that the petitioner had nominated his
nephew Shri Kastubh Rakshit as his nominee. The said finding so recorded
by the Inquiry Officer is based on materials coming on record in the inquiry.
The fact that the petitioner had signed the proposal form and also affixed
his photograph thereon as well as the nomination of his nephew, as
nominee, was so disclosed by the Management Witness-II in the inquiry.
Although the Management Witness-II who was cross-examined by the
petitioner, the main signature in the application form as well as the
nomination of the nephew of the petitioner in the proposal form, could not
be disputed. Accordingly, the conclusions of the Inquiry Officer with regard
to the article of charge No.(A) has to be so held to be based on the
materials coming on record in the inquiry.
19. With regard to the article of charge No.(B), the Inquiry Officer had
concluded that the debits so involved, were so made, without obtaining the
consent of the borrowers. The said aspect of the matter was established by
the deposition of Management Witness-I in the inquiry, wherein, it was
brought on record that no consent letters received from 84 KCC borrowers
for the debits so made in their accounts, was available in the records of the
said Branch of United Bank of India(UBI). It was further brought on record
by Management Witness-I that the vouchers/transactions in the system,
was done by one Ravikant and verified by the petitioner on all the vouchers
Page No.# 12/19
involved. Accordingly, the conclusions so drawn by the Inquiry Officer in his
Inquiry Report pertaining to article of charge No.(B) has to be held to be so
made basing on the materials coming on record.
20. The disciplinary authority by agreeing with the findings so reached by
the Inquiry Officer vide order, dated 10.09.2013, had dealt with the plea
raised by the petitioner that he was absent on 15.12.2009 when the debit
involved in article of charge No.(A), was so made. The disciplinary authority
proceeded to hold that although the debits were made on 15.12.2009; the
demand draft so prepared, were issued to TATA AIG for procurement of the
policies only on 17.12.2009, on which date, the petitioner was present in
the said Branch of United Bank of India(UBI). With regard to article of
charge No.(B), the plea of the petitioner in the inquiry that he had obtained
verbal consent of the borrowers in the absence of any prescribed format for
obtaining such consent, was dealt with by the disciplinary authority and a
finding was recorded that such explanation of the petitioner is not
acceptable as in the banking industry, there is no provision existing for
debiting a customer's account on the basis of verbal consent/ intimation.
Accordingly, basing on the said conclusions, the penalty as noticed
hereinabove, came to be imposed upon the petitioner, herein.
21. Accordingly, the above conclusions reached by the Inquiry Officer as
well as by the disciplinary authority in the matter, being so based on the
materials coming on record, this Court would not re-evaluate the same by
assuming the role of an appellate authority. At this stage, it is to be noted
that while the petitioner had made a contention that he was denied an
opportunity to cross-examine the Management witnesses; it is found that
Page No.# 13/19
such a contention was never raised by the petitioner during the inquiry
proceeding or in the representation as filed by him against the inquiry
report. Such contentions came to be so made only in the appeal memo as
preferred by the petitioner against the penalty as imposed upon him. In
view of the above position, the said contention of the petitioner that he was
denied an opportunity to cross-examine the Management witnesses, cannot
be accepted by this Court.
22. It is also to be noticed and emphasized that in banking business,
absolute devotion, diligence, integrity and honesty needs to be preserved
by every Bank employee and in particular, a Bank Officer and if this is not
observed; the confidence of the public/depositors would be impaired.
23. This Court would now examine the contentions raised by Mr. Mahanta,
learned senior counsel for the petitioner, that the list of documents not
having been annexed to the Show Cause Notice, dated 24.01.2013; the
petitioner was prevented from submitting an effective written statement in
the matter.
24. The said submission of Mr. Mahanta, learned senior counsel for the
petitioner, is a submission so raised during the hearing of the present
proceeding. Such a contention was never raised by the petitioner at any
stage during the pendency of the Disciplinary Proceeding so instituted
against him. In the writ petition also, the petitioner had not raised any
contention in this connection. The inquiry being ordered in the matter by
the disciplinary authority and the Inquiry Officer having started the inquiry,
at the starting of the said inquiry; the copies of the relevant documents
Page No.# 14/19
were furnished to the petitioner and his Defence Assistant. The petitioner
never raised any dispute with regard to the non-furnishing of such
documents by the authorities of United Bank of India(UBI) at any stage of
the inquiry. In the appeal so filed by the petitioner also, no such plea was
taken by the petitioner.
25. In view of the above position, no prejudice having been caused to the
petitioner in the matter, the decision of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court
in Babulal Das(supra), in the considered view of this Court; would not
advance the case of the petitioner. It is also to be noted that the petitioner
had not brought on record any contention and/or document indicating that
he had sought for copies and/or inspection of the documents basing on
which the charges levelled against him, were to be established.
26. Having arrived at the above conclusions; this Court would now
examine the contention raised by Mr. Mahanta, learned senior counsel for
the petitioner that the penalty as imposed upon the petitioner, is
disproportionate to the allegations so established against him in the inquiry
held.
27. This Court in this connection would like to refer to the decision of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Chairman-cum-Managing
Director, United Commercial Bank & ors. v. P. C. Kakkar, reported in
(2003) 4 SCC 364, wherein in this connection, the following conclusions
were drawn by the Court:
"15. It needs no emphasis that when a Court feels that the punishment is shockingly
disproportionate, it must record reasons for coming to such a conclusion. Mere
expression that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate would not meet the
requirement of law. Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning M.R. in
Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union [1971 (1) All E.R. 1148] observed "The giving
Page No.# 15/19
of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration". In Alexander
Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree (1974 LCR 120) it was observed: "Failure to give
reasons amounts to denial of justice". Reasons are live links between the mind of the
decision taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived
at". Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons
is that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, be its
silence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their appellate
function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the
decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system. Another
rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him.
One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the
order made, in other words, a speaking out. The "inscrutable face of a sphinx" is
ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance. But as noted
above, the proceedings commenced in 1981. The employee was placed under
suspension from 1983 to 1988 and has superannuated in 2002. Acquittal in the
criminal case is not determinative of the commission of misconduct or otherwise, and
it is open to the authorities to proceed with the disciplinary proceedings,
notwithstanding acquittal in criminal case. It per se would not entitle the employee to
claim immunity from the proceedings. At the most the factum of acquittal may be
circumstance to be considered while awarding punishment. It would depend upon
facts of each case and even that cannot have universal application."
28. The allegations as levelled against the petitioner on being established
in the inquiry held and the same having demonstrated a misconduct being
committed in the matter by the petitioner who admittedly was a
responsible Officer of the respondent Bank; it is to be noted that the
petitioner cannot be in any manner be extended with any sympathy. The
allegations levelled against the petitioner having been held to have been
established and the misconduct as committed by him being apparent, the
penalty as imposed upon him, cannot be stated to be disproportionate to
the proved misconduct. It is a settled position of law that the penalty that
is to be imposed upon the petitioner is the discretion of the disciplinary
authority. Of course, this discretion has to be examined objectively keeping
in mind the nature and gravity of the charge. The disciplinary authority is
to decide a particular penalty specified in the relevant Rules. A host of
factors go into the decision making process while exercising such a
discretion which include, apart from the nature and gravity of misconduct,
past conduct, nature of duties assigned to the delinquent, responsibility of
duties assigned to the delinquent, previous penalty, if any, and the
Page No.# 16/19
discipline required to be maintained in the establishment where he so
works, as well as in extenuating circumstances, if any. Accordingly, the
penalty as imposed upon the petitioner in the matter, in the considered
view of this Court, is proportionate to the allegations levelled against him
and established in the inquiry.
29. It is also a settled position of law that if the appellate authority is of
the opinion that the case warrants a lesser penalty, it can reduce the
penalty so imposed by the disciplinary authority. Such a power which vests
with the departmental appellate authority, is ordinarily not available to the
court or a tribunal. The Court while undertaking judicial review of the
matter is not supposed to substitute its own opinion on reappraisal of the
facts. In exercise of power of judicial review, however, this Court can
interfere with the punishment imposed when it is found to be totally
irrational or is outrageous in defiance of logic. This limited scope of judicial
review is permissible and interference is available only when the
punishment is shockingly disproportionate, suggesting lack of good faith.
Otherwise, merely because in the opinion of this Court, lesser punishment
would have been more appropriate, cannot be a ground to interfere with
the discretion of the departmental authorities. This Court in the present
proceeding has not found any special circumstances warranting
interference with the penalty as imposed upon the petitioner.
30. It is only when the punishment is found by this Court to be
outrageously disproportionate to the nature of the allegations levelled
against the delinquent that the principle of proportionality would come into
play. It is, however, to be borne in mind that this principle would be
Page No.# 17/19
attracted, which is in tune with the doctrine of Wednesbury rule of
reasonableness, only when in the facts and circumstances of the case,
penalty imposed is so disproportionate to the nature of charge that it
shocks the conscience of the court and the court is forced to believe that it
is totally unreasonable and arbitrary.
31. The principle of proportionality was first propounded by Lord Diplock
in Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service in the
following words:(AC p. 410 D-E)
"........ Judicial review has I think developed to a stage today when without reiterating
any analysis of the steps by which the development has come about, one can
conveniently classify under three heads of the grounds upon which administrative
action is subject to control by judicial review. The first ground I would call 'illegality',
the second 'irrationality' and the third 'procedural impropriety'. This is not to say that
further development on a case by case basis may not in course of time add further
grounds. I have in mind particularly the possible adoption in the future of the
principle of 'proportionality'."
32. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had approved the aforesaid principle in the
case of Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India, reported in (1987) 4 SCC 611,
wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court by emphasising that "all powers have
legal limits" invoked the aforesaid doctrine in the following words in
paragraph No. 25. Paragraph No. 25 of the said judgment being relevant, is
extracted hereinbelow for ready reference: (SCC p. 620, para 25)
"25. The question of the choice and quantum of punishment is within the jurisdiction
and discretion of the court martial. But the sentence has to suit the offence and the
offender. It should not be vindictive or unduly harsh. It should not be so
disproportionate to the offence as to shock the conscience and amount in itself to
conclusive evidence of bias. The doctrine of proportionality, as part of the concept of
judicial review, would ensure that even on an aspect which is, otherwise, within the
exclusive province of the court martial, if the decision of the court even as to sentence
is an outrageous defiance of logic, then the sentence would not be immune from
correction. Irrationality and perversity are recognised grounds of judicial review."
Page No.# 18/19
33. In view of the pronouncement, as noticed above in the matter of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court; it is clear that it is not for the writ Court to
interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority which
is a matter within the domain and the jurisdiction of the said authority. It
having already been concluded hereinabove that the allegations so levelled
against the petitioner, was established in the inquiry basing on the
materials coming on record therein, it would be within the competence and
jurisdiction of the disciplinary authority to impose a penalty as it may
consider adequate commensurating to the misconduct levelled against the
petitioner and proved in the inquiry. It is not for the writ Court to prescribe
another penalty in lieu of the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority.
It will have to be borne in mind that the job entrusted to the petitioner
holding a responsible position in a financial institution like a Bank is that of
faith and confidence and once it is lost, it is for the bank to decide what
penalty is to be imposed. The amount involved is immaterial, what matters
much is tarnishing the image of the Bank in the eyes of the valued
customers and public. The petitioner being a Bank employee ought to have
maintained utmost integrity, devotion, diligence and honesty, which, he
admittedly, has failed to do so.
34. Accordingly, in view of the above discussions and conclusions, this
Court if of the considered view that, given the facts and circumstances as
existing in the matter, it has to be held that the penalty as imposed upon
the petitioner commensurates to the misconduct as established against him
in the matter and the same does not call for any interference from this
Court.
Page No.# 19/19
35. The writ petition accordingly stands dismissed. However, there shall
be no order as to costs.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
