2011 (9) TMI 1052 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the disciplinary proceedings and findings.
2. Application of principles of natural justice.
3. Proportionality of the punishment of dismissal.

Summary:

1. Validity of the Disciplinary Proceedings and Findings:
The Supreme Court examined the findings of the Enquiry Officer, which included serious charges against the appellant, D.M. Parmar, such as gross negligence, lack of integrity, and acts detrimental to the bank's interest. The Court noted that the findings were based on adequate material, mainly bank records, and upheld the disciplinary authority's decision to dismiss D.M. Parmar from service. The Court emphasized that the High Court should not interfere with such findings in the exercise of judicial review u/s Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. Application of Principles of Natural Justice:
The appellant argued that there was a gross violation of principles of natural justice as certain documents requested during the enquiry were not furnished. The Supreme Court found that the Enquiry Officer had rightly determined that the requested documents were not relevant to the charges against D.M. Parmar. The Court held that there was no violation of principles of natural justice since the documents related to irregularities committed by a previous manager and had no bearing on the charges against the appellant.

3. Proportionality of the Punishment of Dismissal:
The appellant contended that the punishment of dismissal was disproportionate to the charges proved. The Supreme Court disagreed, noting that the charges included serious acts of negligence and dishonesty. The Court held that the punishment of dismissal was not "shockingly or strikingly disproportionate" to the gravity of the charges. The Court cited previous decisions emphasizing the need for bank officers to maintain integrity and honesty and concluded that the High Court should not have interfered with the disciplinary authority's decision.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the Division Bench and the learned single Judge, dismissing the writ petition filed by D.M. Parmar. The appeal filed by the bank (C.A. No.2093/2007) was allowed, and the appeal filed by D.M. Parmar (C.A. No.2094/2007) was dismissed. There was no order as to costs.