BOLORAM BORDOLOI versus LAKHIMI GAOLIA BANK & ORS.

Citation: [2021] 1 S.C.R. 858 · Decided: 08-02-2021 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ASHOK BHUSHAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
858
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 1 S.C.R.
   [2021] 1 S.C.R. 858
858
BOLORAM BORDOLOI
v.
LAKHIMI GAOLIA BANK & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 4394 of 2010)
FEBRUARY 08, 2021
[ASHOK BHUSHAN, R. SUBHASH REDDY,
M.R. SHAH, JJ.]
Service Law – Allegations of misappropriation, irregular
disbursal of loans against appellant-Manager of respondent-bank
– Departmental enquiry initiated – Enquiry Officer held charges
against the appellant were proved – Disciplinary authority imposed
punishment of compulsory retirement – Order confirmed by Appellate
authority – Appellant filed writ petition – Single Judge of High
Court did not interfere with the order of compulsory retirement but
held the withholding of service benefits, pensionary dues as illegal,
directed for payment thereof to the appellant – Order confirmed by
Division Bench – Held: On facts, it cannot be said that the procedure
prescribed under the rules was not followed by respondent –Charges
framed are serious and grave – Appellant virtually admitted the
charges, however, tried to explain that such lapses occurred due to
work pressure – Inspite of proved misconduct on serious charges,
disciplinary authority itself was liberal in imposing the punishment
of compulsory retirement – Punishment imposed not disproportionate
to the gravity of charges – Appeal devoid of merit.
Service Law – Departmental enquiry – Findings recorded by
Enquiry Officer – Punishment order passed by disciplinary authority
– Recording of reasons – Held: If the disciplinary authority accepts
the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and passes an order,
no detailed reasons are required to be recorded in the order imposing
punishment.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: The Enquiry Officer after considering oral and
documentary evidence on record, has held that all the charges
are proved. Based on the findings recorded by Enquiry Officer,
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
859
the disciplinary authority has tentatively decided to impose
punishment of compulsory retirement. Disciplinary authority has
issued show cause notice dated 30.07.2005 by enclosing a copy
of the enquiry report. In response to the show cause notice, the
appellant has submitted his comments vide letter dated
16.08.2005. After filing the response to the show cause notice,
order is passed by disciplinary authority imposing punishment of
compulsory retirement. After Enquiry Officer records his findings,
it is always open for the disciplinary authority to arrive at tentative
conclusion of proposed punishment and it can indicate to the
delinquent employee by enclosing a copy of the enquiry report.
Though the counsel for the appellant argued that even before
tentative conclusion is arrived at by the disciplinary authority,
the enquiry report has to be served upon him, but there is no
such proposition laid down in the judgment of this Court in the
case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad relied on by the
counsel for the appellant. In the aforesaid judgment it is held
that delinquent employee is entitled to a copy of the enquiry report
of the enquiry officer before the disciplinary authority takes a
decision on the question of guilt of the delinquent. Merely because
a show cause notice is issued by indicating the proposed
punishment it cannot be said that disciplinary authority has taken
a decision. A perusal of the show cause notice itself makes it
clear that along with the show cause notice itself enquiry report
was also enclosed. As such, it cannot be said that the procedure
prescribed under the rules was not followed by respondent-bank.
If the disciplinary authority accepts the findings recorded by the
Enquiry Officer and passes an order, no detailed reasons are
required to be recorded in the order imposing punishment. The
punishment is imposed based on the findings recorded in the
enquiry report, as such, no further elaborate reasons are required
to be given by the disciplinary authority. The charges framed
against the appellant in the departmental enquiry are serious and
grave. In his letter dated 16.08.2005, to the show cause notice
issued by the disciplinary authority, he virtually admitted the
charges, however, tried to explain that such lapses occurred due
to work pressure. Further he went to the extent of saying – he is
BOLORAM BORDOLOI v. LAKHIMI GAOLIA BANK & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
860
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2021] 1 S.C.R.
ready to bear the loss suffered by the bank on account of his
lapses. The manager of a bank plays a vital role in 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.