Summary
A bare assertion that a chargesheet against a deceased bank employee had been under preparation did not establish contemplated major penalty sufficient to deny consideration of his dependent’s compassionate appointment. The employee had neither been suspended nor charge-sheeted and no supporting material was disclosed. Reading the applicable scheme and Board directions, the Court upheld the High Court’s consideration direction and required implementation within four months; no automatic appointment was ordered.
Issues
- Whether an unsubstantiated claim of a contemplated chargesheet justified refusing compassionate-appointment consideration.
- How the 1999 scheme and 2002 Board directions applied on the record.
Provisions considered
- Clause 10(iv), Bank of India Branch Circular 92/64 dated 17 March 1999The scheme differentiated minor and major disciplinary situations and provided an approval route for consideration; its application required an adequate basis for the asserted disciplinary bar. (¶¶ 3, 6, 7, 9)
- Major-penalty cases and delegated consideration, Bank of India Board directions dated 20 June 2002The Court distinguished contemplated penalty for specified misconduct from a bare unsupported statement that disciplinary charges were being prepared. (¶¶ 8, 9)
Held
- Clause 10(iv) provided consideration with Board approval for minor-penalty situations and Government approval for specified major-penalty situations. Revised guidelines delegated authority to the bank, whose Board directed exclusion of cases involving awarded or contemplated major penalty for specified misconduct. The scheme did not support a blanket rejection based merely on an unsupported possibility of proceedings. (¶¶ 6, 7, 8, 9)
- Before death, no suspension or chargesheet had occurred. The bank asserted only that a chargesheet was being prepared, without relevant material establishing that contemplated proceedings would prima facie produce major penalty. Such a penalty could not simply be presumed from that assertion. (¶¶ 4, 5, 9)
- The High Court correctly directed consideration of the dependent’s compassionate-appointment case. The appeal was dismissed and implementation required within four months of this order. Relief remained consideration under the governing framework, not unconditional appointment. (¶¶ 1, 9, 10)
Result
Bank’s appeal dismissed; direction to consider compassionate appointment upheld and ordered implemented within four months.