DAMOH PANNA SAGAR RURAL REGIONAL BANK AND ANR. versus MUNNA LAL JAIN

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 1031 · Decided: 16-12-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

..., 
DAMOH PANNA SAGAR RURAL REGIONAL BANK AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
MUNNA LAL JAIN 
DECEMBER 16, 2004 
[ARJJIT PASAYAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
Removal/termination of service-Quantum of punishment-Interference 
with-By High Court-Bank manager unauthorisedly withdrew a certain 
sum for personal use-Disciplinary authority terminated the services of the 
said bank manager-On appeal, the High Court directed appellate authority 
B 
c 
to reconsider the matter and pass any punishment other than dismissal, 
removal or termination-Correctness of-Held : The Court should not 
interfere with the administrator's decision unless it was illogical or suffers 
from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the D 
Court-The scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in the 
decision-making process and not the decision-High Court has not recorded 
a definite finding that the punishment imposed suffers from any infirmity-
Hence, High Court's judgment set aside. 
Administrative Law : 
Recording of reasons-Importance and necessity of-Explained. 
The respondent while functioning temporarily as the Branch 
Manager of the appellant-Bank withdrew a certain sum unauthorisedly 
for his personal use. The Disciplinary authority terminated the services 
of the respondent. 
On appeal, High Court directed the appellate authority to recon-
sider the matter and pass any punishment other than dismissal, removal 
or termination of the services of the respondent. Hence the appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The Court should not interfere with the administrator's 
decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety 
E 
F 
G 
or was shocking to the conscience of the Court, in the sense that it was H 
1031 
1032 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A 
in defiance of logic or moral standards. The Court would not go into 
the correctness of the choice made by the administrator open to him and 
the Court should not substitute its decision to that of the administrator. 
The scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in the decision-
making process and not the decision. [1043-G-H] 
B 
c 
Om Kumar v. Union of India, (2001] 2 SCC 386; B.C. Chaturvedi v. 
Union of India, (1995] 6 SCC 749 and Union of India v. G. Ganayutham, 
(1997] 7 sec 463, relied to. 
In Re : Wednesbury, (1948) 1 KB 223 and Council for Civil Services 
Union v. Minister of Civil Services, (1983] 1 AC 768, referred to. 
2.1. To shorten the litigations Court/Tribunal may, in exceptional 
and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment by recording cogent 
reasons in support thereof. In a normal course if the punishment im-
D posed were shockingly disproportionate it would be appropriate to 
direct the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority to recon-
sider the penalty imposed. (1044-A-B] 
2.2. In the case at hand, the High Court did not record any reason 
as to how and why it found the punishment shockingly disproportionate. 
E Even there is no discussion on this aspect. (1044-C) 
3. A Bank officer is required to exercise higher standards of hon-
esty and integrity. He deals with the money of the depositors and the 
customers. Every officer/employee of the Bank is required to take all 
F 
possible steps to protect the interests of the Bank and to discharge his 
duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and to do 
nothing which is unbecoming of a Bank officer. Good conduct and, 
discipline are inseparable from the functioning of every officer/em-
ployee of the Bank. [ 1044-D] 
G 
4. It is no defence to say that there was no loss or profit result<!d 
in a case when the officer/employee acted without authority. The very 
discipline of an organization more particularly a Bank is dependent 
upon each of its officers and officers acting and operating within their 
allotted sphere. Acting beyond one's authority is by itself a breach of 
H discipline and is a misconduct. The charges against the employee were 
DAMOH PANNA SAGAR RURAL REGIONAL BANK v. M.L. JAIN 
1033 
not causal in nature and were serious. These aspects do not appear to A 
have been kept in view by the High Court. [1044-E·F) 
Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager v. Nikunja Bihari 
Patnaik, [1996] 9 SCC 69, relied on. 
5.1. When a Court feels that the punishment is shockingly dispro-
portionate, it must record reasons for coming to such a conclusion. Mere 
expression that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.