2004 (11) TMI 571 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the order of removal from service by the Appellate Authority valid? Whether the appellant will be entitled to full pension and gratuity irrespective of his total period of service?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Time-barred Appeal Consideration
2. Consideration of Unproven Charges
3. Lack of Personal Hearing

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Time-barred Appeal Consideration:
The appellant argued that the appeal was considered by the Appellate Authority despite being time-barred. The appeal was required to be filed within 45 days of the receipt of the order, but the appellant filed it late. The court found that the delay was implicitly condoned by the Appellate Authority under Rule 69(5) of the Service Rules, which allows for the extension of time for good and sufficient reasons. Thus, the court did not find any merit in the appellant's contention regarding the time-barred appeal.

2. Consideration of Unproven Charges:
The appellant contended that the Appellate Authority considered charges that were not proven while enhancing the punishment. Specifically, the Appellate Authority relied on Charge No. 1, which was not proven, in addition to Charge No. 5, which was proven. The court observed that even if Charge No. 1 was considered as a passing observation, the proven Charge No. 5 was serious and grave in nature. The appellant had admitted to the misconduct of disbursing a loan to his wife under a scheme meant for Educated Unemployed Youth, which violated Rule 34(3)(1) of the Bank's Service Rules. The court found no reason to interfere with the Appellate Authority's decision to enhance the punishment based on the proven charge.

3. Lack of Personal Hearing:
The appellant argued that the enhancement of punishment was not justified as no personal hearing was given, despite a specific request. The court noted that the Service Rules did not mandate a personal hearing for the enhancement of punishment. The Appellate Authority had considered the appellant's detailed written representation before making the final decision. The court cited several judgments to reinforce that principles of natural justice do not always necessitate a personal hearing and that a fair opportunity to present one's case can be sufficient. The court found that the Appellate Authority had applied its mind thoroughly to the facts and circumstances of the case and had modified the proposed penalty of dismissal to removal from service, which was deemed just and proper.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the appeal, confirming the order of the Division Bench of the High Court. The appellant's contentions regarding the time-barred appeal, consideration of unproven charges, and lack of personal hearing were found to be without merit. The court emphasized the seriousness of the misconduct and upheld the punishment of removal from service while allowing the appellant to receive full pension and gratuity due to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.