Appearance by this Court on appeal against dismissal from service of a bank employee for misusing housing funds. The Court remits the matter for a non-dismissal penalty.
Remanded to Bank Authorities to reconsider and pass an order other than dismissal within two months.
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.
Page No.# 1/7
GAHC010092582021
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA/174/2021
JAMINI TALUKDAR S/O- LATE TARINI CHARAN TALUKDAR, R/O- 3C, LUVKUSH APARTMENT, SENDURIALI, ZOO ROAD, GUWAHATI- 24.
VERSUS
THE STATE BANK OF INDIA AND 2 ORS
REP. BY ITS ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER (ADMIN), ADMINISTRATIVE UNIT, G.S. ROAD, BHANGAGARH, GUWAHATI, PIN- 781005.
2:THE STATE BANK OF INDIA FANCY BAZAR BRANCH SRCB ROAD GUWAHATI REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER.
3:THE CHIEF MANAGER STATE BANK OF INDIA TEZPUR BRANCH TEZPUR PIN- 784001
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR. K N CHOUDHURY
Advocate for the Respondent : MR. H BURAGOHAIN
Page No.# 2/7
BEFORE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING) MR. N. KOTISWAR SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SOUMITRA SAIKIA
ORDER
22.06.2022
[ N. Kotiswar Singh, CJ(Acting) ]
Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. R.J. Das, for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S.S. Sharma, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. H. Buragohain, for the respondents.
2. The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 20.04.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.1736/2012, by which the challenge put by the appellant to his dismissal order 17.04.2010 issued by the State Bank of India was rejected. The learned Single Judge dismissed the aforesaid writ petition on the grounds, inter alia, that the penalty imposed does not amount to disproportionate penalty.
3. Before we enter into the merit of the claim and counter-claim, it may be apposite to refer to the facts briefly as narrated by the appellant. It is the case of the appellant that while serving in the bank since 1987, the appellant had obtained a housing loan of ` 1,50,000/- on 25.07.1994 and an additional housing loan of similar amount on 31.10.1997, which were to be repaid on monthly installments/EMI by deducting from his salary.
4. The bank charged the appellant of committing gross-misconduct on the ground that though he had obtained the loan for construction of house, he purchased a plot of land and also had submitted fabricated vouchers to justify taking of loans through the Bank. The Bank authorities accordingly found the said conduct of the appellant unbecoming, more so, when
Page No.# 3/7
he was serving in the bank and accordingly, decided to impose the aforesaid penalty of dismissal after holding an inquiry.
5. The plea of the appellant before the learned Single Judge as well as before this Court is that though the appellant had obtained the housing loan, it is not the case of causing any pecuniary loss to the Bank in as much as he was duly repaying the loan amount and in fact, the entire loan amount had been fully repaid with interest accrued thereon. The appellant also admitted to the Bank authorities that instead of construction of house for which purpose the aforesaid loan was taken, he had purchased a plot of land which was meant for his ailing and for construction of a small house thereupon. As such, he acknowledges that though he took the loan for construction of house, he used part of the loan amount for purchase of the land and part for construction. Therefore, it is also incorrect to say that the entire loan amount was not used for construction at all.
6. According to the learned Senior counsel for the appellant, the conduct though perhaps may not be appropriate, cannot be said to be a gross-misconduct in as much as he was not causing any undue favour to any client of the Bank or any member of the public by misusing his position. The only irregularity he committed was to use part of loan amount for purchase of land and for submitting certain vouchers to support of his loan.
7. In this regard, learned Senior counsel for the appellant has drawn our attention to a number of decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as by this Court to show that the said punishment will amount to disproportionate to the charge proved, which would require interference by this Court.
8. On the other hand, learned Senior counsel for the respondent Bank has reiterated that
Page No.# 4/7
since he was an employee of the bank, he was not expected to mislead and submit false vouchers to the Bank to avail a benefit from the Bank. In other words, acts committed by the appellant amounted to breach of trust which was not expected of an employee of the Bank.
9. We are also of the view that there cannot be any doubt of the concern raised by the Bank about such a conduct of the appellant. However, we have also taken note of the fact that the appellant's act did not result in any pecuniary loss to the Bank nor is there any element of doing any favour to any member of the public or engaging in any conduct which would tend to lower the prestige or goodwill of the Bank in the eyes of the public. It was certainly an act which was not expected of an employee but we also have noted that the appellant had readily admitted to his charges by not contesting the same and had tried to explain the same by stating that he had utilized part of the said loan amount for purchasing a plot of land and for construction of a small house for his ailing old mother.
10. We also have noted that dismissal from service is the highest punishment that can be imposed against an employee under the relevant service rules governing the service conditions of the appellant in the Bank i.e. Memorandum of Settlement of Disciplinary Action and Procedures for Workmen, dated 10.04.2002. Our notice has been also drawn to other lesser penalties which can be imposed by the bank on the employees for their misconduct, which are as follows:-
Page No.# 5/7
future employment; or
11. We have also observed that the appellant had been serving for the last 23 years in the bank apparently without any adverse remark or report. Though we had given several opportunities to the bank authorities to produce the service records of the appellant to enable us to see whether it contains any adverse report or indicates any other unbecoming behaviour of the appellant, the Bank has not been able to produce his service records and as such, in view of the categorical assertion made by the appellant that there is no such adverse remark or report in his past service, we take it to be correct, in absence of any record contrary to the same.
12. If the appellant had served for 23 years without any adverse remark or report against
Page No.# 6/7
him, we are of the view that dismissal is the highest form of penalty, which would entail denial of any service benefits including pension perhaps, may amount to be very harsh. We also have take into account that by the aforesaid misconduct of the appellant, no pecuniary loss was caused to the Bank. We also have taken into account that it was an internal administrative act of the appellant which did not come to the public limelight which could have caused embarassment to the Bank. We have also seen that the appellant at the first instance had apologized for his misconduct and also had offered the reason for doing so. Therefore, under the circumstances, we are of the view that denial of the benefit of the entire past service rendered for 23 years perhaps may amount to be too harsh considering the mitigating circumstances as referred to above.
13. Accordingly, we are of the view that the Bank authorities may take a more lenient view as far as the quantum of punishment is concerned by resorting to any other punishment which is available under the Rules as quoted above, so that at the end of the day when the appellant is leaving the service of the bank, he will have something to fall back upon and that he can continue to support his ailing old mother.
14. With the above observations, we remit the matter to the Bank authorities to reconsider and for passing an appropriate order of penalty without imposing the penalty of dismissal. Consequently, the impugned order of dismissal dated 17.04.2010, which has been challenged, will be subject to the final order that may be passed by the bank authorities in terms of the observations and direction made by us as above. To that extent, the impugned order of the learned Single Judge stands interfered with. Further, by considering the fact that the appellant has been out of service since 2010, who is looking after his ailing old mother, the
Page No.# 7/7
Bank authorities are expected to pass the appropriate order as expeditiously as possible
preferably within a period of 2(two) months from today.
15. The present appeal accordingly, stands disposed of.
Sd/- Soumitra Saikia Sd/- N. Kotiswar Singh JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE (ACTING)
Comparing Assistant
2 issues framed by the court
Whether dismissal from service for misusing housing funds constitutes gross misconduct warranting the highest penalty.
Whether the penalty is disproportionate given the lack of pecuniary loss and the employee's clean service record.
Jamini Talukdar
The State Bank of India
N. Kotiswar Singh
Soumitra Saikia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
