BANK OF INDIA & ORS.versusPANKAJ SRIVASTAVA

         [2024] 5 S.C.R. 1305 : 2024 INSC 538

                    Bank of India & Ors.
                             v.
                     Pankaj Srivastava
               (Civil Appeal No. 6837 of 2023)
                          30 April 2024
       [J.K. Maheshwari and Sanjay Karol, JJ.]

                    Issue for Consideration
Whether there is relevant material on record that could be
construed as contemplation of the disciplinary proceedings against
the deceased employee which would prima facie result in award
of major penalty, and thereby bar the Respondent’s claim for
compassionate appointment.

                           Headnotes†
Compassionate Appointment – No relevant material to
contemplate that the initiation of disciplinary proceedings
would lead to prima facie award of major penalty prior to the
death of the deceased employee:
Held: 1. Upon reviewing Clause 10(iv) of the Scheme prevalent
for for grant of compassionate appointment vide Branch Circular
No. 92/64 dated 17.03.1999 and the amended directions from
the bank’s Board Meeting on 20.06.2002, it is clear that even
if disciplinary proceedings against an employee were pending
or under contemplation at the time of their death, which
could prima facie lead to a major penalty, the dependents of
the deceased employee are still not entirely excluded from
consideration for compassionate grounds and it was subject to
government approval. [Paras 6, 8, 9]
2. The court further noticed that the deceased employee was
not placed under suspension, initiation, or contemplation
of the disciplinary proceedings before his death and the
chargesheet was also not issued. It is merely said that the
chargesheet was under preparation. Therefore, in absence
of any relevant material disclosed it cannot be presumed to
be case of prima facie award of major penalty on account of
contemplation of disciplinary proceedings. Claim for appointment of
Respondent on compassionate ground directed to be considered
by the Petitioner. [Paras 9, 10]
1306                                                       [2024] 5 S.C.R.

                      Digital Supreme Court Reports


                               Case Law Cited
     State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. v. Shashi Kumar [2019] 2
     SCR 432 : (2019) 3 SCC 653 – referred to.

                                 List of Acts
     Constitution of India.

                              List of Keywords
     Service Law; Disciplinary proceedings; Compassionate Appointment.

                              Case Arising From
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6837 of 2023
     From the Judgment and Order dated 26.05.2022 of the High Court of
     Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in SPLAD No. 42 of 2022
                         Appearances for Parties
     Rajesh Kumar Gautam, Anant Gautam, Samir Mudgil, Dinesh Sharma,
     Ms. Shivani Sagar, R. P. Daida, Advs. for the Appellants.
     Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, Sr. Adv., Rohit K. Singh, Pritam
     Bishwas, Prakhar Srivastava, Ms. Ananya Sahu, Advs. for the
     Respondent.
                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                   Order
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.
3.   In the short counter-affidavit filed by the bank, the scheme prevalent
     for grant of compassionate appointment 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
[2024] 5 S.C.R.                                                        1307

                Bank of India & Ors. v. Pankaj Srivastava


     vide letter No. 18/80/97-IR 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 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
     counter-affidavit, 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 charge-
           sheet 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.”
     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
1308                                                        [2024] 5 S.C.R.

                     Digital Supreme Court Reports


     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 prima-facie have resulted in award
          of major penalty, 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 afore-quoted 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 20.06.2002
     has been relied upon which was issued in reference to the revised
[2024] 5 S.C.R.                                                         1309

                Bank of India & Ors. v. Pankaj Srivastava


     Government guidelines vide letter F. No. 18/80/97-IR 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. 18/80/97-IR dated 03.11.1998 Revised
           Government guidelines vide letter F. No. 18/80/97-IR 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/2002-03/212 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 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
1310                                                             [2024] 5 S.C.R.

                         Digital Supreme Court Reports


     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 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 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.

     Result of the case: Appeal Dismissed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Himanshu Rai, Hony. Associate Editor
                                 (Verified by: Liz Mathew, Sr. Adv.)