UMESH KUMAR PAHWAversusTHE BOARD OF DIRECTORS UTTARAKHAND GRAMIN BANK & ORS.

420                      [2022]REPORTS
               SUPREME COURT   16 S.C.R. 420                [2022] 16 S.C.R.


A                         UMESH KUMAR PAHWA
                                        v.
        THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS UTTARAKHAND GRAMIN
                        BANK & ORS.
B                      (Civil Appeal No. 796-799 of 2022)
                             FEBRUARY 11, 2022
              [M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
             Constitution of India: Art.226 – Appellant who was serving
      as the Branch officer at the Respondent Bank was accused of taking
C
      bribe from the borrower of the bank – Case of borrower-complainant
      that he had applied for loan which was sanctioned but the loan
      amount was later reduced by the appellant – Bank issued a show
      cause notice to the Appellant – Appellant denied the allegations
      and in turn levied allegations of malice and bias against the
D     Chairman of the Bank – The disciplinary proceedings were
      commenced which found the Appellant guilty and he was removed
      from service – Appellant filed an appeal before the Appellate
      Authority which was dismissed –Aggrieved appellant filed writ
      petition before the High Court – During the pendency of this writ
      petition, the Appellant filed another writ petition seeking a writ of
E
      mandamus commanding the Bank to grant promotion from the date
      when those junior to him were promoted – High Court while hearing
      both writs together, dismissed the first writ petition thereby
      confirming the order of removal from service without further entering
      into the merits of the writ petition which was for promotion – Hence
F     the instant appeal – Held: The charges proved in the departmental
      proceedings showed that there was no financial loss caused to the
      Bank and on the contrary a decision was taken by the appellant to
      reduce the loan amount in the case of the complainant, which can
      be said to be the decision in the bank’s interest – Moreover, the fact
      that the appellant had worked for 28 years and during those 28
G
      years, there were no allegations against him, the punishment of
      removal for the charges proved and the misconduct established, is
      too harsh and disproportionate – However, considering the fact
      that it can be said to be a case of loss of confidence in the employee
      by the Bank, it is deemed just and proper to substitute the punishment
H     from that of removal of service to that of compulsory retirement – As
                                         420
  UMESH KUMAR PAHWA v. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS                          421
          UTTARAKHAND GRAMIN BANK

regards the second writ petition, the High Court had dismissed the     A
said writ petition for promotion primarily on the ground that once
he was removed from service, there was no question of considering
his case for promotion – However, the appellant claimed the
promotion from the date when his juniors came to be promoted –
The material available on record showed that in the earlier round
                                                                       B
of litigation, the High Court had directed the Bank to consider his
case for promotion considering his ACR for the Financial Years
1999-2000 to 2003-2004 – The said exercise was required to be
done by the Bank – Therefore, the second writ petition is remanded
to the High Court to decide the same afresh in accordance with law
and on its own merits.                                                 C
      Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
      HELD: 1. The High Court has observed that the appellant
demanded a bribe from complainant solely on the basis of his
cross-examination. However, he had a reason to speak against
the appellant as his loan amount was reduced from                 to   D
Rs.75,000/- by the appellant. It is the case on behalf of the
appellant that considering the material and his capacity, a decision
was taken to reduce the loan amount from Rs.1,50,000/- to
Rs.75,000/- which was taken in the interest of the bank. There
are allegations of bias against the Chairman right from the very       E
beginning. Even at one point of time the Chairman was charge-
sheeted for the offences under Sections 323, 354, 504, 506 IPC
on the complaint filed by the wife of the appellant and on the
basis of complaint filed by a woman delegate. It is true that
subsequent thereto the criminal proceedings were quashed by
the High Court. There were specific allegations of bias against        F
the Chairman and the Bank right from the initiation of the
departmental proceedings made by the appellant. [Para 3.1][425-
D-G]
      2. The charges proved in the departmental proceedings
showed that there is no financial loss caused to the Bank and on       G
the contrary a decision was taken by the appellant to reduce the
loan amount from Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.75,000/- in the case of the
complainant, which can be said to be the decision in the bank’s
interest. Moreover, the fact that the appellant had worked for 28
years and during those 28 years there are no allegations against       H
422            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                       [2022] 16 S.C.R.


A     him, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the punishment
      of removal for the charges proved and the misconduct established,
      is too harsh and disproportionate. However, considering the fact
      that it can be said to be a case of loss of confidence in the
      employee by the Bank, it is deemed just and proper to substitute
      the punishment from that of removal of service to that of
B
      compulsory retirement. [Para 3.2][425-G-H; 426-A-B]
            3. So far as the submission on behalf of the appellant that
      the appellant has not conducted any misconduct and the finding
      recorded by the inquiry officer on the charges proved are perverse
      is concerned, the High Court is justified in holding that in the
C     limited jurisdiction available to the High Court in exercise of
      powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the High
      Court is not required to reappreciate the evidence and/or
      interfere with the findings recorded by the inquiry officer accepted
      by the disciplinary authority. However, the order of removal of
D     service can be said to be disproportionate to the charges and
      misconduct held to be proved. [Para 4][426-C-D]
            4. The High Court has dismissed the said writ petition for
      promotion primarily on the ground that once he is removed from
      service there is no question of considering his case for promotion.
E     However, it is required to be noted that the appellant claimed
      the promotion from Scale II to Scale III from the date when his
      juniors came to be promoted w.e.f. 30.03.2005. From the material
      available on record, it appears that in the earlier round of litigation
      being Writ Petition (S/B) No.65 of 2012, the High Court had
      directed the Bank to consider his case for promotion considering
F     his ACR for the Financial Years 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. The
      said exercise was required to be done by the Bank. Therefore,
      so far as the Writ Petition (S/B) No.267 of 2013 is concerned, the
      same is required to be remanded to the High Court to decide the
      same afresh in accordance with law and on its own merits. [Para
G     5][426-E-G]
            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 796-
      799 of 2022.



H
  UMESH KUMAR PAHWA v. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS,                               423
          UTTARAKHAND GRAMIN BANK

       From the Judgment and Order dated 17.07.2018 of the High Court        A
of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Writ Petition No. 04(S/B) of 2013 and Writ
Petition No. 267(S/B) of 2013 and Impugned final Order dated 08.01.2020
in Review Application MCC No. 1039 and 1026 of 2018.
       Ms.Priya Hingo Rani, Sr.Adv., Azim H. Laskar, Ganesan Subbian,
Jyoti kumar Singh, Chandra Bhushan Prasad, Advs. for the Appellant.          B
     D.S. Patni, Sr. Adv., Suhaas Ratna Joshi, Mahendra Singh Rawat,
Ms. Mallika Joshi, Dharmendra Barthwal, Adv. for the Respondents.
      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
      M. R. SHAH, J.
                                                                             C
       1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common
judgment and order dated 17.07.2018 passed by the High Court of
Uttarakhand at Nainital in Writ Petition (S/B) No.4 of 2013 and Writ
Petition (S/B) No.267 of 2013 as well as the order passed in the review
applications dismissing the same vide common order dated 08.01.2020,
the employee - the original writ petitioner has preferred the present        D
appeals.
       2. That the appellant herein was serving as a Branch Officer at
Pratap Pur Branch of the Respondent – Bank. He has put in 28 years’
of service. While he was serving at Pratap Pur Branch during the period
27.06.2008 to 21.11.2008, a complaint was made against the appellant         E
by one borrower of the Bank namely Karamjeet Singh on 17.09.2008
alleging that the appellant had sanctioned the limit of loan of
Rs.1,50,000/- which was later on reduced to Rs.75,000/-. Four other
persons also made the complaint against the appellant. On receiving the
complaint against the appellant - the Chairman of the Bank transferred
                                                                             F
him to another branch of the Bank, during pendency of the inquiry
pertaining to aforesaid complaints. A show cause notice was issued to
the appellant seeking his explanation. The appellant replied to the said
show cause notice stating therein that the allegations in the complaint
are baseless, frivolous and fabricated. He also made allegations of malice
and bias against the Chairman of the Bank. The disciplinary proceedings      G
were initiated against the appellant. A charge-sheet was issued to him
and following charges were framed:
      “1. He did not discharge his duties with integrity and honesty and
      took such actions and committed such omissions which showed
      lack of probity and integrity on his part.                             H
424            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 16 S.C.R.


A           2. He committed serious violations of duty and breach of trust
            reposed in him by the Bank and misused his official position.
            3. In the performance of his official duties and in exercise of
            powers conferred on him, he unauthorizedly exceeded his authority
            /powers and did not report the same for/or obtained approval/
B           confirmation from higher authorities for such excessive actions.
            4. He flouted instructions of the higher authorities.
            5. He adopted such steps and took such actions as were derogatory,
            prejudicial and detrimental to the interest of the bank.

C           6. He misrepresented and suppressed material facts from higher
            authorities.
            7. He knowingly and willfully violated Bank’s rules and established
            procedures for his personal gains.
            8. Due to his acts, bank is likely to suffer financial losses.
D
            9. He committed such acts which tarnished the image of the Bank.
            10. He did acts unbecoming of an officer of the Bank”
            2.1 That the Bank decided to initiate an inquiry for a major
      punishment. The appellant participated in the departmental inquiry. The
E     complainant, Karamjeet Singh was also examined during the inquiry.
      The inquiry officer held the charges No.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10 as
      proved. On receipt of the inquiry report the appellant submitted his reply
      and contended that the findings of the Inquiry Officer are perverse to
      the material placed on record and against the principle of natural justice.
      He also made allegations of bias against the Chairman of the Bank.
F     Thereafter after considering the inquiry report and giving opportunity to
      the appellant, the disciplinary authority/Chairman of the Bank passed an
      order of removal of the appellant from service. The appellant preferred
      an appeal before the Appellate Authority and the Appellant Authority
      dismissed the appeal vide order dated 20.12.2011. Feeling aggrieved
G     against the order of removal from service, the appellant preferred the
      present writ petition before the High Court being Writ Petition (S/B)
      No.4 of 2013.
             2.2 During the pendency of Writ Petition (S/B) No.4 of 2013 the
      appellant also preferred another Writ Petition No.267 of 2013 seeking a
H     writ of mandamus commanding the Bank to grant promotion from Scale
  UMESH KUMAR PAHWA v. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS,                                 425
    UTTARAKHAND GRAMIN BANK [M. R. SHAH, J.]

II to Scale III from the date when those junior to him were promoted           A
w.e.f. 30.03.2005. Both the writ petitions were heard together. By the
impugned judgment and order the High Court has dismissed Writ Petition
(S/B) No.4 of 2013 confirming the order of removal from service of the
appellant. As the order of removal had been confirmed, the High Court
without further entering into the merits of the case also dismissed Writ
                                                                               B
Petition (S/B) No.267 of 2013 which was for seeking promotion from
Scale II to Scale III officer from the date when those juniors to the
appellant were promoted i.e. w.e.f. 30.03.2005.
      Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned common
judgment and order passed in Writ Petition (S/B) No.267 of 2013 as well
as W.P. (S/B.) No.4 of 2013, the employee delinquent has preferred the         C
present appeals.
       3. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties
at length.
       3.1 Having considered the impugned judgment and order passed            D
by the High Court and even the findings recorded by the Inquiry officer
it appears that the High Court has observed that the appellant demanded
a bribe from Karamjeet Singh solely on the basis of his cross-examination.
However, it is required to be noted that he had a reason to speak against
the appellant as his loan amount was reduced from Rs.1,50,000/- to
Rs.75,000/- by the appellant. It is the case on behalf of the appellant that   E
considering the material and his capacity a decision was taken to reduce
the loan amount from Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.75,000/- which was taken in
the interest of the bank. There are allegations of bias against the Chairman
right from the very beginning. Even at one point of time the Chairman
was charge-sheeted for the offences under Sections 323, 354, 504, 506          F
IPC on the complaint filed by the wife of the appellant and on the basis
of complaint filed by a woman delegate. It is true that subsequent thereto
the criminal proceedings were quashed by the High Court. Be that it
may, there were specific allegations of bias against the Chairman and
the Bank right from the initiation of the departmental proceedings made
by the appellant.                                                              G
      3.2 Even looking to the charges proved in the departmental
proceedings we find that as such, there is no financial loss caused to the
Bank and on the contrary a decision was taken by the appellant to reduce
the loan amount from Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.75,000/- in the case of
Karamjeet Singh -the complainant, which can be said to be the decision         H
426             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2022] 16 S.C.R.


A     in the bank’s interest. Moreover, the fact that the appellant had worked
      for 28 years and during those 28 years there are no allegations against
      him, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion
      that the punishment of removal for the charges proved and the misconduct
      established, is too harsh and disproportionate. However, considering the
      fact that it can be said to be a case of loss of confidence in the employee
B
      by the Bank, we deem it just and proper to substitute the punishment
      from that of removal of service to that of compulsory retirement.
             4. So far as the submission on behalf of the appellant that the
      appellant has not conducted any misconduct and the finding recorded by
      the inquiry officer on the charges proved are perverse is concerned, the
C     High Court is justified in holding that in the limited jurisdiction available
      to the High Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the
      Constitution of India, the High Court is not required to reappreciate the
      evidence and/or interfere with the findings recorded by the inquiry officer
      accepted by the disciplinary authority. However, as observed hereinabove
D     the order of removal of service can be said to be disproportionate to the
      charges and misconduct held to be proved.
              5. Now in so far as the dismissal of Writ Petition (S/B) No.267 of
      2013 is concerned, at the outset it is required to be noted that the High
      Court has not dealt with and considered the same on merits independently.
E     The High Court has dismissed the said writ petition for promotion primarily
      on the ground that once he is removed from service there is no question
      of considering his case for promotion. However, it is required to be noted
      that the appellant claimed the promotion from Scale II to Scale III from
      the date when his juniors came to be promoted w.e.f. 30.03.2005. From
      the material available on record, it appears that in the earlier round of
F     litigation being Writ Petition (S/B) No.65 of 2012, the High Court had
      directed the Bank to consider his case for promotion considering his
      ACR for the Financial Years 1999-2000 to 2003-2004. The said exercise
      was required to be done by the Bank. Therefore, so far as the Writ
      Petition (S/B) No.267 of 2013 is concerned, the same is required to be
G     remanded to the High Court to decide the same afresh in accordance
      with law and on its own merits.
             6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above the
      impugned Judgment and Order passed by the High Court passed in Writ
      Petition (S/B) No.4 of 2013 is hereby modified to the extent substituting
H     the punishment from that of removal of service to that of compulsory
      retirement.
  UMESH KUMAR PAHWA v. THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS,                                 427
    UTTARAKHAND GRAMIN BANK [M. R. SHAH, J.]

       The appellant shall be entitled to all the benefits which may be        A
available to him by converting the punishment from that of removal of
service to that of compulsory retirement. So far as the impugned judgment
and order of the High Court in Writ Petition (S/B) No.267 of 2013 is
concerned, in view of the above and for the reason stated above and as
the High Court has not decided the said writ petition on merits, we set
                                                                               B
aside the impugned judgment and order as well as the order dated
08.01.2020 dismissing the said Writ Petition (S/B) No.267 of 2013 and
remand the matter to the High Court to decide the same afresh in
accordance with law and on its own merits.
      Present appeals are accordingly allowed to the aforesaid extent.
However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no         C
order as to costs.

Devika Gujral and Amarendra Kumar                    Appeals partly allowed.
(Assisted by : Iram Jan, LCRA)
                                                                               D




                                                                               E




                                                                               F




                                                                               G




                                                                               H