Petitioners, legal heirs of a dismissed bank employee who went missing, challenged his termination and denied pension. The High Court held that terminated employees are not entitled to pension and that proven misconduct bars compassionate appointment, dismissing the writ petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WP No. 2330 of 2003
1. Himanshu Namdeo, son of Shri Bhola Nath Namdeo, aged 27 years, resident of Purani Civil Lines, Ward No.13, Sarangapani Chal, Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh)
2. Jitendra Namdeo, son of Shri Bhola Nath Namdeo, aged 24 years, resident of Purani Civil Lines, Ward No.13, Sarangapani Chal, Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh)
3. Rishi Namdeo, son of Shri Bhola Nath Namdeo, aged 22 years, resident of Purani Civil Lines, Ward No.13, Sarangapani Chal, Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh)
4. Rashmi Namdeo, daughter of Shri Bhola Nath Namdeo, aged 16 years, resident of Purani Civil Lines, Ward No.13, Sarangapani Chal, Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) through natural guardian mother Shrimati Manorama Namdeo
5. Smt. Manorama Namdeo, wife of Shri Bhola Nath Namdeo, aged 50 years, resident of Purani Civil Lines, Ward No.13, Sarangapani Chal, Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh)
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. Dena Bank, through its Managing Director, Head Office Maker Towers (E), Cuffe Parade, Mumbai – 400005
2. Regional Manager, Dena Bank, Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
3. Branch Manager, Dena Bank, Mohan Nagar, Durg (Chhattisgarh)
4. Superintendent of Police, Durg (Chhattisgarh)
---- Respondent
For Petitioners : Shri PR Patankar with Shri Utsav Mahiswar, Advocates. For Respondents 1 to 3 : Shri Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate.
2
Hon'ble Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra
Order On Board
04/02/2016
(i) he has sanctioned loans to various fictitious units/ persons with intention to shower undue favour to one Ganesh Singh of M/s Laxmi Trading Company,
(ii) he has also sanctioned loan to M/s Singh Trading Company belonging to the wife of Ganesh Singh Rajput,
(iii) he has sanctioned 2 loans to Smt. Shakun Rajput and Shri Ganesh Singh, who are husband and wife for a different business,
(iv) enhancing cc limits in both the loan accounts,
(v) other accounts opened in the name of other persons is mentioned in detail in charge sheet (Annexure-R/1).
3
guidelines/ norms/procedure, (3) lack of honesty, integrity and devotion in discharge of duties, (4) committing acts prejudicial to the interest of the Bank involving the Bank or likely to involve the Bank in serious financial loss, and (5) acts unbecoming of a Bank Officer.
4
guidelines, negligence in discharging duties and acts wholly unbecoming of a Bank Officer.
“ 9. In State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaya1 , this Court observed as follows: (SCC p. 587, para 7)
“ 7 . It is now well settled that the courts will not act as an appellate court and reassess the evidence led in the domestic enquiry, nor interfere on the ground that another view is possible on the material on record. If the enquiry has been fairly and properly held and the findings are based on evidence, the question of adequacy of the evidence or the reliable nature of the evidence will not be grounds for interfering with the findings in departmental enquiries. Therefore, courts will not interfere with findings of fact recorded in departmental enquiries, except where such findings are based on no evidence or where they are clearly perverse. The test to find out perversity is to see whether a tribunal acting reasonably could have arrived at such conclusion or finding, on the material on record. The courts will however interfere with the findings in disciplinary matters, if principles of natural justice or statutory regulations have been violated or if
1 (2011) 4 SCC 584
5
the order is found to be arbitrary, capricious, mala fide or based on extraneous considerations. (Vide B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India2 , Union of India v. G. Ganayutham3 , Bank of India v. Degala Suryanarayana4 and High Court of Judicature of Bombay v. Shashikant S. Patil5 .)”
It is not necessary to multiply authorities on this point. Suffice it to say that the law is well settled in this regard.”
2 (1995) 6 SCC 749
3 (1997) 7 SCC 463
4 (1999) 5 SCC 762
5 (2000) 1 SCC 416
6
7
consideration for not extending the benefit to a dependant of such employee on the ground that he was punished. To us, it cannot be said that it is a case of double jeopardy or a dual punishment.
33. Compassionate appointment is really a concession in favour of dependants of a deceased employee. If during his career, he had committed illegalities and the misconduct is proved and he is punished, obviously his dependants cannot claim right to the employment. With respect, the learned Single Judge was wholly wrong in observing that such an action would be violative of the principles of natural justice.
34. To us, the observation of the learned Single Judge that “no past acts of misconduct of the employee who dies in harness can be taken into account while considering the case of a family member for employment on compassionate ground” is not in consonance with law. Past conduct of an employee is undoubtedly an important consideration. We are also of the view that State Bank was right in rejecting the prayer of the wife of the deceased employee vide its letter dated 29-1-2001 observing therein that “unblemished service record is implicit”.
Sd/- Judge (Prashant Kumar Mishra)
Barve
2 issues framed by the court
Whether legal heirs are entitled to pension and terminal benefits when the deceased employee was dismissed following a departmental enquiry.
Whether legal heirs are eligible for compassionate appointment when the employee was punished for proven misconduct.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
General Manager (Operations) State Bank of India and another Vs. R. PeriyasamyReferred¶38
(2015) 3 SCC 101 · Who else cites this
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. Nemi Chand NalwayaExplained¶39
State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaya
B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of IndiaReferred¶40
(2011) 4 SCC 584 · Who else cites this
Union of India v. G. GanayuthamReferred¶40
Union of India v. G. Ganayutham
Bank of India v. Degala SuryanarayanaReferred¶40
Bank of India v. Degala Suryanarayana
High Court of Judicature of Bombay v. Shashikant S. PatilReferred¶40
High Court of Judicature of Bombay v. Shashikant S. Patil
General Manager, State Bank of India and Others Vs. Anju JainApplied¶54
(2008) 8 SCC 475 · Who else cites this
Himanshu Namdeo
Jitendra Namdeo
Rishi Namdeo
Rashmi Namdeo
Smt. Manorama Namdeo
Dena Bank
Prashant Kumar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
