BOLORAM BORDOLOI vs. LAKHIMI GAOLIA BANK .

C.A.No.4394 of 2010 REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.4394 OF 2010 Boloram Bordoloi …..Appellant Versus Lakhimi Gaolia Bank & Ors.     …..Respondents J U D G M E N T R. Subhash Reddy, J. 1. This civil appeal is filed by the appellant in Writ Appeal No.361 of 2008 on the file of Gauhati High Court, aggrieved by the order dated 03.04.2009.   By the aforesaid order, the order dated 08.06.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition   No.219   of   2006   was   confirmed.     The   learned   Single Judge, while confirming the order of compulsory retirement in Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ARJUN BISHT Date: 2021.02.08 17:10:24 IST Reason: disciplinary proceedings initiated against the appellant, has held that withholding of service benefits as well as pensionary dues to 1 C.A.No.4394 of 2010 the appellant is illegal and issued directions to pay the retiral benefits. 2. The appellant was the Manager of the first respondent­ bank.   On the basis of certain allegations levelled against him, disciplinary proceedings were initiated and charge memo dated 18.06.2004   was   issued.     The   substance   of   the   charges   is extracted in the order passed by the learned Single Judge.   In view   of   the   reply   filed   by   him   on   15.07.2004,   denying   the charges,   the   respondent­bank   having   not   satisfied   with   the explanation, has decided to order departmental enquiry against the appellant.  The Enquiry Officer, after completing the enquiry by appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, has held that all the  charges, i.e.  charge  nos.1  to  5,  framed against   the   appellant   were   proved.     In   view   of   the   findings recorded   by   the   Enquiry   Officer,   the   respondent­bank   has proposed to inflict the punishment of compulsory retirement on the   appellant.   Based   on   the   findings   recorded   in   the departmental   enquiry,   has   passed   order   imposing   the punishment   of   “compulsory   retirement”   from   service.     The 2 C.A.No.4394 of 2010 appellant   was   unsuccessful   before   the   departmental   appellate authority, i.e., Board of Directors of the Bank and the appellate authority has dismissed his appeal confirming the order of the disciplinary authority.  Challenging the order of the disciplinary authority imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement, as confirmed by the appellate authority, the appellant approached the High Court by filing Writ Petition (C) No.219 of 2006 before the Gauhati High Court.  The learned Single Judge vide detailed judgment and order dated 08.06.2007 has not interfered with the order of compulsory retirement but at the same time has found that   withholding   of   the   service   benefits   including   pensionary dues   was   illegal   and   issued   directions   for   payment   of   such benefits to the appellant.   As against the order of the learned Single Judge, the appellant has preferred Writ Appeal No.361 of 2008.  The Division Bench of the High Court, by the impugned order, has dismissed the same by confirming the order of the learned Single Judge.   3 C.A.No.4394 of 2010 3. We have heard Sri Parthiv Goswami, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent­bank. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has mainly contended that after completion of enquiry, even before furnishing a copy of enquiry report, the disciplinary authority has issued show cause notice   dated   30.07.2005   vide   Ref. No.LBG/I&V/PP&PA/154/08/2005­06   by   indicating   proposed punishment of compulsory retirement.  It is submitted that such conclusion arrived at by the disciplinary authority even before the   service   of   enquiry   report,   is   illegal.     To   buttress   his submission, the learned counsel has placed reliance on judgment of   this   Court   in   the   case   of   Managing   Director,   ECIL, Hyderabad & Ors.   v.   B. Karunakar & Ors.   (1993) 4 SCC 727 and the judgment of this Court in the case of   State Bank of India   &   Ors.   v.   Mohammad   Badruddin   (2019)   16   SCC   69. Further   submission   of   the   learned   counsel   was   that   the disciplinary authority has not recorded any reasons in the order dated 29.08.2005 while imposing the punishment of compulsory 4 C.A.No.4394 of 2010 retirement and similarly the appellate authority has dismissed the appeal without recording reasons.  Lastly, it is submitted by learned counsel that the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the gravity of charges, as such, prayed for setting aside the impugned orders. 5. On the other hand, Sri Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent­bank, 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   is   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 5 C.A.No.4394 of 2010 contemplated under the Rules and the procedure adopted is in conformity with the ratio laid down by this Court in the case of   (supra).   It is submitted Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad that having regard to facts of the case, the judgment in the case of   (supra) has no application to support Mohammad Badruddin the case of the appellant. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we have perused   the   impugned   order,   the   order   of   the   learned   Single Judge and other material placed on record. 7. The   appellant   was   working   as   a   Manager   of   the respondent­bank.  A perusal of the charges, which are held to be proved by the Enquiry Officer, reveal 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   Enquiry   Officer,   after considering oral and documentary evidence on record, has held that all the charges are proved.  Based on the findings recorded 6 C.A.No.4394 of 2010 by   Enquiry   Officer,   the   disciplinary   authority   has   tentatively decided   to   impose   punishment   of   compulsory   retirement. Disciplinary   authority   has   issued   show   cause   notice   dated 30.07.2005   by   enclosing   a   copy   of   the   enquiry   report.     In response to the show cause notice, the appellant has submitted his comments vide letter dated 16.08.2005 indicating that due to work pressure some operational lapses have occurred.  Further he has also pleaded that if the bank has sustained any loss due to his fault, he is ready to bear such loss from his own source. After filing the response to the show cause notice, order is passed by   disciplinary   authority   imposing   punishment   of   compulsory retirement.     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. Though the learned counsel for the appellant has argued that even before tentative conclusion is arrived at by the disciplinary authority, the enquiry report has to be served upon him, but there is no such proposition laid down in the judgment of this 7 C.A.No.4394 of 2010 Court   in   the   case   of   Managing   Director,   ECIL,   Hyderabad (supra).  In the aforesaid judgment of this Court it is 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.    A  perusal of  the  show cause notice dated 30.07.2005 itself makes it clear that along with the show cause notice itself enquiry report was also enclosed.  As such, it cannot be said that the procedure prescribed under the rules was not followed   by   respondent­bank.     We   are   of   the   view   that   the judgment of this Court in the case of  Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad   (supra) is not helpful to the case of the appellant. 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 8 C.A.No.4394 of 2010 elaborate reasons are required to be given by the disciplinary authority.     As the departmental appeal was considered by the Board   of   Directors   in   the   meeting   held   on   10.12.2005,   the Board’s decision is communicated vide order dated 21.12.2005 in Ref. No.LGB/I&V/Appeal/31/02/2005­06.   In that view of the matter, we do not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that orders impugned are devoid of reasons.   8. Even, the last submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the gravity of charges, also cannot be accepted.  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.  The manager of a bank plays a vital role in managing the affairs of 9 C.A.No.4394 of 2010 the bank.  A bank officer/employee deals with the public money. The   nature   of   his   work   demands   vigilance   with   the   in­built 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.     If   the   manager   of   a   bank   indulges   in   such misconduct,   which   is   evident   from   the   charge   memo   dated 18.06.2004 and the findings of the enquiry officer, it indicates that   such   charges   are   grave   and   serious.     Inspite   of   proved misconduct on such serious charges, disciplinary authority itself was   liberal   in   imposing   the   punishment   of   compulsory retirement.  In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the punishment   imposed   in   the   disciplinary   proceedings   on   the appellant, is disproportionate to the gravity of charges.  As such, this submission of the learned counsel for the appellant also cannot be accepted. 10 C.A.No.4394 of 2010 9. For the aforesaid reasons, this appeal is devoid of merit, same is dismissed with no order as to costs.  ……………………………J. [Ashok Bhushan] ……………………………J. [R. Subhash Reddy] ……………………………J. [M.R. Shah] New Delhi. February 08, 2021 11