LexBANK OF INDIA & ORS. versus PANKAJ SRIVASTAVA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 5 S.C.R. 1305 : 2024 INSC 538 Bank of India & Ors. v. Pankaj Srivastava (Civil Appeal No. 6837 of 2023) 30 April 2024 [J.K. Maheshwari and Sanjay Karol, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether there is relevant material on record that could be construed as contemplation of the disciplinary proceedings against the deceased employee which would prima facie result in award of major penalty, and thereby bar the Respondent’s claim for compassionate appointment. Headnotes† Compassionate Appointment – No relevant material to contemplate that the initiation of disciplinary proceedings would lead to prima facie award of major penalty prior to the death of the deceased employee: Held: 1. Upon reviewing Clause 10(iv) of the Scheme prevalent for for grant of compassionate appointment vide Branch Circular No. 92/64 dated 17.03.1999 and the amended directions from the bank’s Board Meeting on 20.06.2002, it is clear that even if disciplinary proceedings against an employee were pending or under contemplation at the time of their death, which could prima facie lead to a major penalty, the dependents of the deceased employee are still not entirely excluded from consideration for compassionate grounds and it was subject to government approval. [Paras 6, 8, 9] 2. The court further noticed that the deceased employee was not placed under suspension, initiation, or contemplation of the disciplinary proceedings before his death and the chargesheet was also not issued. It is merely said that the chargesheet was under preparation. Therefore, in absence of any relevant material disclosed it cannot be presumed to be case of prima facie award of major penalty on account of contemplation of disciplinary proceedings. Claim for appointment of Respondent on compassionate ground directed to be considered by the Petitioner. [Paras 9, 10] 1306 [2024] 5 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports Case Law Cited State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. v. Shashi Kumar [2019] 2 SCR 432 : (2019) 3 SCC 653 – referred to. List of Acts Constitution of India. List of Keywords Service Law; Disciplinary proceedings; Compassionate Appointment. Case Arising From CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 6837 of 2023 From the Judgment and Order dated 26.05.2022 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench in SPLAD No. 42 of 2022 Appearances for Parties Rajesh Kumar Gautam, Anant Gautam, Samir Mudgil, Dinesh Sharma, Ms. Shivani Sagar, R. P. Daida, Advs. for the Appellants. Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, Sr. Adv., Rohit K. Singh, Pritam Bishwas, Prakhar Srivastava, Ms. Ananya Sahu, Advs. for the Respondent. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Order 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment of Single Bench, allowing the writ petition of the respondent and directing the bank to consider his claim for appointment on compassionate ground; confirmed in appeal by the Division Bench, this appeal has been preferred. 2. The facts in shorn are, the respondent filed a writ petition seeking directions to consider his case being eligible and grant compassionate appointment on the post of Clerk with immediate effect on account of death of his father during course of employment. Prayer was also made to quash the order dated 20.06.2002 issued by the bank. 3. In the short counter-affidavit filed by the bank, the scheme prevalent for grant of compassionate appointment vide Branch Circular No. 92/64 dated 17.03.1999 was referred, in particular, Clause 10(iv) thereof. Further reference was made regarding revised guidelines [2024] 5 S.C.R. 1307 Bank of India & Ors. v. Pankaj Srivastava vide letter No. 18/80/97-IR dated 19.02.2002 delegating the authority to the bank for appointment of dependents of deceased employee on compassionate ground relating to cases involving major penalty and not required to be referred to Government of India for clearance. Apropos the letter dated 20.06.2002 issued by Bank of India in Board Meeting, indicates that the Executive Director of the Bank is directed not to consider those cases which involve award/consideration/ contemplation of major penalty to employees on account of fraud/ forgery/misappropriation or due to any vigilance angle/negligence. The bank had also filed a supplementary affidavit before the writ Court which was also placed on record. 4. Learned Single Bench proceeded on the premise that as per the contents of the supplementary affidavit, no charge sheet was served upon p
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.