Summary
A bank officer challenged removal from service and dismissal of a separate retrospective-promotion claim. The Court retained the disciplinary findings but found removal disproportionate given his long unblemished service, absence of financial loss and the circumstances of the complaint. Because the bank had lost confidence, compulsory retirement was substituted with consequential benefits. The earlier promotion claim was remanded to the High Court for an independent decision on merits.
Issues
- Whether removal was disproportionate despite the sustained disciplinary findings.
- Whether the officer’s claim to promotion from an earlier date could be dismissed solely because he was later removed.
Provisions considered
- Article 226, Constitution of IndiaThe High Court properly declined to reappreciate the inquiry evidence, but the punishment remained open to scrutiny for disproportionality. (¶ 4)
Held
- The Court did not overturn the inquiry findings or exonerate the officer. It accepted the limited scope of Article 226 review of disciplinary evidence. (¶ 4)
- The complainant’s reduced loan afforded a reason for hostility; bias allegations had been raised from the outset. No financial loss was caused, the loan reduction served the bank’s interest, and twenty-eight years of service had otherwise attracted no allegations. Removal was too harsh on these facts. (¶ 3.1-3.2)
- Loss of confidence nevertheless justified ending active service. The Court substituted compulsory retirement for removal and granted the benefits available from that conversion, rather than reinstating the officer. (¶¶ 3.2, 6)
- The promotion petition concerned advancement from the date juniors were promoted in 2005 and had not been independently decided. It was remanded to the High Court for a fresh merits determination; promotion itself was not awarded. (¶ 5-6)
Result
Appeals partly allowed. Removal converted to compulsory retirement with available consequential benefits. Dismissal of the promotion petition set aside and that matter remanded to the High Court for fresh determination. No costs.