VidhiSangh

Supreme Court of India · 16/07/2019

G H STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. versus MOHAMMAD BADRUDDIN

[2019] 9 S.C.R. 1016 · 2019 INSC 764

AI-generated headnote. Verify against the judgment before relying on it. Paragraph numbers refer to the judgment.

Summary

Two disciplinary punishments required different outcomes. The 1988 reversion could not be invalidated by retrospectively applying the later rule requiring supply of the inquiry report. The 1993 removal was vitiated because reasons for disagreeing with favourable inquiry findings were not communicated. An independently proved charge did not authorise the reviewing court to preserve removal itself. The matter was remitted for disciplinary reconsideration and determination of benefits, without reinstatement after superannuation.

Issues

  1. Whether non-supply of the inquiry report invalidated the pre-November 1990 punishment.
  2. Whether removal could stand despite uncommunicated disagreement reasons because another charge remained proved.
  3. What relief and benefit determination were appropriate after superannuation.

Held

Result

Bank appeals allowed with directions. The 1988 appellate reversion penalty restored. The 1993 removal and appellate order set aside; matter remanded for disciplinary reconsideration. No reinstatement after superannuation; appropriate order on back wages and terminal benefits to be passed within three months of receipt.

Judgment PDF: Supreme Court of India, [2019] 9 S.C.R. 1016.