Full Judgment Text
1
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
2024 INSC 538
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6837 OF 2023
BANK OF INDIA & ORS APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
PANKAJ SRIVASTAVA RESPONDENT(S)
O R D E R
1. Being aggrieved by the judgment of Single Bench,
allowing the writ petition of the respondent and directing
the bank to consider his claim for appointment on
compassionate ground; confirmed in appeal by the
Division Bench, this appeal has been preferred.
2. The facts in shorn are, the respondent filed a writ petition
seeking directions to consider his case being eligible and
grant compassionate appointment on the post of Clerk
with immediate effect on account of death of his father
during course of employment. Prayer was also made to
quash the order dated 20.06.2002 issued by the bank.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Jayant Kumar Arora
Date: 2024.07.19
17:36:36 IST
Reason:
3.
In the short counteraffidavit filed by the bank, the
scheme prevalent for grant of compassionate appointment
2
vide Branch Circular No. 92/64 dated 17.03.1999 was
referred, in particular, Clause 10(iv) thereof. Further
reference was made regarding revised guidelines vide
letter No. 18/80/97IR dated 19.02.2002 delegating the
authority to the bank for appointment of dependents of
deceased employee on compassionate ground relating to
cases involving major penalty and not required to be
referred to Government of India for clearance. Apropos
the letter dated 20.06.2002 issued by Bank of India in
Board Meeting, indicates that the Executive Director of
the Bank is directed not to consider those cases which
involve award/consideration/contemplation of major
penalty to employees on account of
fraud/forgery/misappropriation or due to any vigilance
angle/negligence. The bank had also filed a
supplementary affidavit before the writ Court which was
also placed on record.
4. Learned Single Bench proceeded on the premise that as
per the contents of the supplementary affidavit, no charge
sheet was served upon prior to the death of the employee,
and opined that the disciplinary proceedings were neither
3
under contemplation nor initiated, however, the defence
taken was not found plausible in terms of the policy.
5.
On filing intra court appeal by bank, the High Court
referred the scheme dated 17.03.1999 and analyzed the
purport of Clause 10(iv) and the letter of the Bank of
India in Board Meeting dated 20.06.2002. In reference
thereto, the Court observed that the deceased was neither
punished with major penalty nor such penalty was in
contemplation against him prior to his death. It is said
that father of the respondent died on 28.07.2000 and till
his death he was not placed under suspension either due
to contemplation or initiation of the departmental
proceedings. As per averments in the counteraffidavit,
the charge sheet was not issued, except to say that it was
under preparation. However, the Division Bench in the
impugned judgment has opined as under:
“In our considered opinion, merely because
the chargesheet was said to be under
preparation before the death of the father of
the respondent – petitioner, it cannot be said
that any major penalty was in contemplation.
Thus, the aforesaid submission made by the
learned counsel for the appellants does not
appeal to this Court which is hereby rejected.”
4
The Bench also denied to accede the plea raised
relying on the judgment of
State of Himachal Pradesh
and Anr. Vs. Shashi Kumar (2019) 3 SCC 653 and
observed that in the present case, there is no delay either
in applying or taking recourse before the Court for
appropriate directions to appoint the writ petitioner on
compassionate ground and thus, accepted the reasonings
as given by learned Single Judge.
6.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on
perusal of the scheme dated 17.03.1999, in particular,
Clause 10(iv), which specifies the exceptions to
recruitment of the dependents of the employees who died
in harness, is relevant, and extracted for ready reference
as under:
10(iv). In case where the deceased employee
had been awarded minor penalty or
disciplinary proceedings against the employee
was pending or contemplated at the time of
death of the employee, which would prima
facie have resulted in award of minor penalty,
appointment on compassionate grounds of the
dependents will be considered with the
approval of the bank’s board. In case where
the deceased employee had been awarded
major penalty or disciplinary proceedings
against the employee was pending or
contemplated at time of death of the
employee, which would primafacie have
resulted in award of major penalty,
5
appointment on compassionate grounds of the
dependents will be considered with the
approval of the Government of India, Ministry
of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs
(Banking Division).
7.
The aforequoted clause specifies two exceptions, first, in
the cases where minor penalty had been awarded or
disciplinary proceedings against the deceased employee
was pending or contemplated at the time of death of
employee which would prima facie result in award of
minor penalty, there would not be any impediment to
consider the case of dependents for compassionate
appointment with the approval of Bank’s board. While in
the second exception it is clarified that where the
deceased employee had been awarded major penalty or
the disciplinary proceedings against the employee was
pending or contemplated at the time of death of employee
which would prima facie result in award of major penalty,
the consideration of appointment on compassionate
ground of the dependents of such employee may be made
with the approval of the Government of India, Ministry of
Finance, Department of Economic Affairs (Banking
Division).
8.
The letter of the Bank of India in Board Meeting dated
6
20.06.2002 has been relied upon which was issued in
reference to the revised Government guidelines vide letter
F. No. 18/80/97IR dated 19.02.2002. The relevant
portion of the letter dated 20.06.2002 is reproduced as
thus:
“Scheme for appointment of dependents of
deceased employees on compassionate ground
cases involving major penalty proceeding
referred to Government of India for clearance
as per earlier Government guidelines vide its
letter F. No. 18/80/97IR dated 03.11.1998
Revised Government guidelines vide letter F.
No. 18/80/97IR dated 19.2.2002 delegating
authority to Bank in the above cases.
Apropos the directive given at the
Board Meeting held on 20.04.2002 that the
Board would decide on case to case basis
upon resubmission of the above referred 12
individual cases to it, memorandum No.
P/A/SSG/200203/212 dated 27.05.2002,
together with annexures, embodying the
factual details of the said 12 cases,
submitted by Personal Department, was
considered.
The Board DIRECTED that
employment on compassionate ground need
not be considered in cases where major
penalty was awarded
considered/contemplated
to employees on account of
fraud/forgery/misappropriation, on account
of any vigilance angle/negligence and
authorized the Executive Director to consider
only those cases not involving the above, for
employment of dependent of deceased
employees on compassionate ground.
Stamp
Bank of India
Board of Meeting
20.06.2002”
9. On perusal of Clause 10(iv) of the Scheme and the
7
amended directions in bank’s Board Meeting dated
20.06.2002, it is luculent that even in cases where the
disciplinary proceedings against the employee were
pending or were under contemplation prior to his death
which would prima facie result in award of major penalty,
the case of the dependents of the deceased employee on
compassionate ground has not been completely refused
from consideration and it was subject to approval of the
Government. In compliance of government circular dated
19.02.2002, the bank in its Board of Meeting dated
20.06.2002 authorized the Executive Director of the Bank
and said that the cases for appointment on
compassionate ground shall not be considered where the
major penalty was awarded/contemplated to employee on
account of fraud/forgery/misappropriation and on
account of any vigilance angle/negligence. The above
letter does not debar the cases where disciplinary
proceedings were pending or were in contemplation
against the employee at the time of death which would
prima facie result in award of major penalty. In our view,
the decision of the bank in its Board Meeting dated
8
20.06.2002 is logical whereby the cases wherein the
penalty was either awarded or contemplated to the
deceased employee was not required to be considered.
The letter is silent with respect to contemplation of the
disciplinary proceedings against the deceased employee
which would prima facie result in award of major penalty.
In the facts of the case in hand, the deceased employee
was not placed under suspension on account of
contemplation of the disciplinary proceedings and the
charge sheet was also not issued. It is merely said that
the charge sheet was under preparation, however, in
absence of any relevant material disclosed, it might not
be presumed to be a case of prima facie award of major
penalty on account of contemplation of disciplinary
proceedings. Therefore, in our considered opinion,
reasoning as given in the judgment by the Division Bench
is completely in consonance with the spirit of the Circular
and it rightly affirmed the decision of the Single Bench to
consider the case of the respondent for grant of
compassionate appointment.
10.
In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit
9
in the contention to interfere with the order passed by the
Single Bench and the Division Bench of the High Court.
Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed, being bereft of
any merit. However, we direct that the order passed by
the High Court be now implemented within a period of
four months from the date of the order.
..........………............J.
[ J. K. MAHESHWARI ]
..........………...........J.
[ SANJAY KAROL ]
New Delhi;
April 30, 2024.