The Supreme Court on 08.02.2021(Tuesday) comprising of a bench of Justices Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy, and MR Shah noted that it is not required by the Disciplinary Authority to have detailed reasons in an order imposing punishment which accepts the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. The bench observed that just a mere notice indicated the proposed punishment does not mean that the disciplinary authority has taken a decision.(Boloram Bordoloi vs. Lakhimi Gaolia Bank)
Facts of the Case
The manager of Lakhimi Gaolia Bank was imposed with a punishment of 'compulsory retirement'. The Disciplinary authority had accepted the report of the Enquiry Officer, that he has sanctioned and disbursed loans without following the due procedure contemplated under law and also there are allegations of misappropriation, disbursing loans irregularly in some instances to (a) units without any shop/business; (b) more than one loan to members of same family etc. The Gauhati High Court upheld the 'compulsory retirement' order.
Hence, this Write Appeal was filed by the Appellant.
Contention of the parties
The contention raised in the appeal before the Apex Court was that the disciplinary authority has not recorded any reasons in the order dated 29.08.20 while imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement and similarly the appellate authority has dismissed the appeal without recording reasons.
On the other hand, the counsel appearing for the respondent bank, by taking us to the charges framed against the appellant and the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, has submitted that the charges framed against the appellant are grave and serious and in view of the proved misconduct of the appellant who was working as a Manager in the bank, the order of compulsory retirement was passed by the disciplinary authority.
It was submitted that having regard to charges framed against the appellant, punishment imposed cannot be said to be disproportionate. Further it is submitted that after enquiry is completed it is always open for the disciplinary authority to indicate the punishment in the show cause notice, by enclosing a copy of the Enquiry Report. It is submitted that the respondents have followed procedure contemplated under the Rules and the procedure adopted is in conformity with the ratio laid down by this Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad & Ors. v. B. Karunakar & Ors. (1993) 4 SCC 727.
Courts observation & Judgment
The Court noted, after Enquiry Officer records his findings, it is always open for the disciplinary authority to arrive at tentative conclusion of proposed punishment and it can indicate to the delinquent employee by enclosing a copy of the enquiry report.
The argument that even before tentative conclusion is arrived at by the disciplinary authority, the enquiry report has to be served upon him, was not accepted by the Court as there is no such proposition laid down in the judgment of this Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad & Ors. v. B. Karunakar & Ors. (1993) 4 SCC 727. In the aforesaid judgment of this Court it was held that:
“delinquent employee is entitled to a copy of the enquiry report of the enquiry officer before the disciplinary authority takes a decision on the question of guilt of the delinquent. Merely because a show cause notice is issued by indicating the proposed punishment it cannot be said that disciplinary authority has taken a decision.”
In the present case, along with the show cause notice itself enquiry report was also enclosed. Hence, it cannot be said that the procedure prescribed under the rules was not followed by the bank.
Further, it is well settled that if the disciplinary authority accepts the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and passes an order, no detailed reasons are required to be recorded in the order imposing punishment. The punishment is imposed based on the findings recorded in the enquiry report, as such, no further elaborate reasons are required to be given by the disciplinary authority.
The Court also refused to accept the argument that the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the gravity of charges. The charges framed against the appellant in the departmental enquiry are serious and grave.
“If we look at the response, in his letter dated 16.08.2005, to the show cause notice issued by the disciplinary authority, it is clear that he has virtually admitted the charges, however, tried to explain that such lapses occurred due to work pressure. Further he went to the extent of saying – he is ready to bear the loss suffered by the bank on account of his lapses.”
If the manager of a bank indulges in such misconduct, as is evident in the present case and the findings of the enquiry officer, it indicates that such charges are grave and serious.
“The manager of a bank plays a vital role in managing the affairs of the bank. A bank officer/employee deals with the public money. The nature of his work demands vigilance with the in¬built requirement to act carefully. If an officer/employee of the bank is allowed to act beyond his authority, the discipline of the bank will disappear. When the procedural guidelines are issued for grant of loans, officers/employees are required to follow the same meticulously and any deviation will lead to erosion of public trust on the banks.”
Inspite of proved misconduct on such serious charges, disciplinary authority itself was liberal in imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement and hence, the Court refused to hold that the punishment imposed in the disciplinary proceedings on the appellant, is disproportionate to the gravity of charges
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Share this Document :Picture Source :
