Summary
The Supreme Court upheld a bank manager’s compulsory retirement for proved loan-related misconduct. A show-cause notice enclosing the inquiry report and indicating a tentative punishment did not establish prejudgment. Acceptance of the inquiry findings did not require another elaborate statement of reasons. Given the seriousness of misconduct involving public money, work pressure and an offer to repay losses did not make compulsory retirement disproportionate. The earlier direction to release retirement benefits remained undisturbed.
Issues
- Whether indicating a tentative punishment in a notice enclosing the inquiry report violated the employee’s opportunity to respond.
- Whether the disciplinary orders lacked necessary reasons or imposed disproportionate punishment.
Held
- The inquiry report accompanied the show-cause notice, the proposed punishment was tentative, and the employee responded before the final decision. Indicating a proposal in those circumstances did not mean the authority had already decided guilt or punishment. (¶ 7)
- Where the disciplinary authority accepts the inquiry findings, a further elaborate repetition of reasons is unnecessary. The departmental appeal had also been considered by the Board, whose decision was communicated. The objection to absence of reasons failed on this record. (¶ 7)
- The manager’s loan-related misconduct was serious given his responsibilities concerning public funds. His explanation of work pressure and readiness to bear losses did not undermine the findings or make compulsory retirement disproportionate. (¶¶ 7, 8)
- The appeal against the disciplinary punishment was dismissed; the High Court’s separate protection of service and pensionary benefits was not disturbed. (¶¶ 1, 2, 9)
Result
Appeal dismissed without costs; compulsory retirement upheld and the High Court’s direction concerning retirement benefits left intact.