Karnataka High Court
Gururaj Havanur v. The Management of Syndicate Bank & ors.
WRIT PETITION NO. 109981 OF 2015
Bench- HON’BLE MR JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY
Decided On 14-06-2023
Facts of the case-
The petitioner in this case was accused of misconduct for violating the rules and norms of the Bank while processing loans for agriculturists. The Disciplinary Authority conducted a hearing and found the petitioner’s reply to be unsatisfactory. As a result, in September 2014, after the petitioner’s superannuation (retirement), the Disciplinary Authority issued an order of dismissal against the petitioner.
Feeling aggrieved by this decision, the petitioner decided to appeal the order of dismissal. However, the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal.
The petitioner argued that the management was biased against him, pointing out that a decision to conduct an inquiry against him had already been made even before he had the opportunity to submit a reply to the charges against him. Additionally, it was alleged that the petitioner was not provided with the necessary documents along with the charge sheet.
Furthermore, the petitioner contended that since he had already reached the age of superannuation and had retired from service, the continuation of the inquiry against him after retirement was legally invalid.
To summarize, the petitioner was accused of misconduct in relation to loan processing, and the Disciplinary Authority, after an unsatisfactory reply from the petitioner, issued an order of dismissal after the petitioner had already retired. The petitioner appealed the decision, claiming bias, improper document disclosure, and the invalidity of conducting an inquiry after retirement.
Judgement
The court has upheld the dismissal order issued by the Management of Syndicate Bank against a former Manager who was accused of misconduct. The court emphasized that when dealing with public money, the highest degree of integrity, honesty, and trustworthiness is essential, leaving no room for compromise. The court stated that any misplaced sympathy or leniency would undermine the seriousness of the charges, and therefore, the courts must exercise caution in such cases.
Regarding the chargesheet issued to the petitioner, the court noted that it clearly stated that the petitioner was placed under suspension with effect from 23.12.2010 pending an inquiry into the alleged misconduct. The court highlighted that the suspension order was issued in anticipation of an inquiry, as is customary in such situations, and it cannot be concluded that the management was biased against the petitioner based on this fact alone.
The court also addressed the petitioner’s argument that the charges against him were vague. It observed that separate charges had been framed for each allegation, with specific details provided, including particulars of documents and individuals involved in the sanctioned loans. Thus, the court dismissed the petitioner’s claim that the charges were vague.
Regarding the contention that the continuation of the inquiry after retirement was legally invalid, the court referred to Rule 20(3)(iii) of the Syndicate Bank (Officers’) Service Regulations, 1979. The court explained that according to this rule, a departmental inquiry initiated against an employee during their service can be continued even after retirement. It clarified that although the employee ceases to be in service upon reaching superannuation, the inquiry can proceed as if the employee were still in service until final orders are passed.
The court acknowledged the petitioner’s reference to the case of UCO Bank v. Rajendra Shukla, which argued that the punishment of dismissal cannot be imposed after superannuation. However, the court noted that the Supreme Court had overruled this case in Chairman cum Managing Director, Mahanadi Coalfields Limited vs. Rabindranath Choubey.
The court stated that in cases of proven misconduct, when the relevant statute empowers the disciplinary authority to impose appropriate punishment, and if the punishment is upheld by the appellate authority, the scope for intervention by courts or tribunals is very limited. It emphasized that unless the punishment is shockingly or strikingly disproportionate or harsh, the court cannot interfere, especially when the punishment has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority.
The court further emphasized that it is not the role of the courts to act as appellate authorities, reevaluate the evidence, and reach their own findings. It concluded that serious charges of misconduct had been leveled against the petitioner, and based on the proven misconduct, the disciplinary authority deemed it appropriate to issue an order of dismissal. Therefore, absent any glaring disproportionality or harshness, the court declined to interfere with the imposed punishment, particularly when it had been upheld by the Appellate Authority.
Judgment- click here to review the judgment
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY ABHAY SHUKLA
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
