NARESH CHANDRA BHARDWAJ versus BANK OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2019] 6 S.C.R. 240 · Decided: 22-04-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
240
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
NARESH CHANDRA BHARDWAJ
v.
BANK OF INDIA & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 4037 of 2019)
APRIL 22, 2019
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND INDIRA BANERJEE, JJ.]
Service Law: Removal from service – Appellant-bank officer
sanctioned three loans while posted in one branch and  recommended
two loans at another branch which were ultimately classified as
Non-Performing Assets – When the process of granting these loans
was scrutinised by the Bank, various procedural abnormalities were
found, which were likely  to cause a loss of Rs.70.32 lakhs to the
Bank – Punishment of removal from service imposed on the appellant
– Appellant prayed that, on parity, he should also be visited only
with the punishment of compulsory retirement as there were two other
cases of officers where also similar loss was caused on account of
the same party and they were visited with the punishment of
compulsory retirement – Held:  Recommendation of the Chief
Vigilance Officer showed that earlier the proposal was for removal
from service for all the three officers – However, only in respect of
other two officers, it was converted into compulsory retirement –
The reason was stated to be the seriousness of the acts of misconduct
of the appellant and the fact that he was the recommending authority
in two cases and the sanctioning authority in three other cases –
No mala fide was proved in case of the appellant – It was found
that there was one key person who defrauded many organisations
by proving his identity through different identity cards acquired by
him fraudulently –  There was no  significant difference in the conduct
of the three officers as would justify this differentiation in punishment
– As per the counter affidavit submitted by the respondents-employer,
in their own wisdom they had agreed to grant compassionate
allowance to the appellant, ensuring that no financial loss is
suffered by the appellant on account of removal from service –
Appellant was given maximum benefit under the Pension Regulations
1995 dealing with compassionate allowance – Since there was no
financial difference and the role was practically identical, there
   [2019] 6 S.C.R. 240
240
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
241
was no visible reason to not convert the punishment inflicted on the
appellant from one of “removal from service” to “compulsory
retirement” – In the said facts & circumstances, the plea of the
appellant to convert his punishment to one of “compulsory
retirement” is accepted.
Administrative law: Judicial review – Quantum of punishment
– Scope of judicial review – Held: The domain of the courts on the
issue of quantum of punishment is very limited – It is the disciplinary
authority or the appellate authority, which decides the nature of
punishment keeping in mind the seriousness of the misconduct
committed – However, if the punishment is so disproportionate that
it shocks the conscience of the court, the courts are not denuded of
the authority to interfere with the same – Normally, even in such
cases, it may be appropriate to remit the matter back for
consideration by the disciplinary/appellate authority – However,
one other cause for interference can be where the plea raised is of
parity in punishment but then the pre-requisite would be that the
parity has to be in the nature of charges made and held against the
delinquent employee and the conduct of the employee post the
incident – Service law.
Administrative law: Judicial review – Quantum of punishment
– Principle of equality – When the concerned employee and co-
delinquent are equally placed – There has to be complete parity
between the two not only in respect of nature of charge but
subsequent conduct as well after the service of charge sheet in the
two cases – If co-delinquent accepted the charges, indicating remorse
with unqualified apology, lesser punishment to him would be
justifiable.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.  It is the disciplinary authority or the appellate
authority, which decides the nature of punishment keeping in mind
the seriousness of the misconduct committed. This would not
imply that if the punishment is so disproportionate that it shocks
the conscience of the court the courts are denuded of the authority
to interfere with the same. [Para 6][244-B-C]
Rajendra Yadav v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.
(2013) 3 SCC 73 : [2013] 1 SCR 1029 ; Lucknow
NARESH CHANDRA BHARDWAJ v. BANK OF INDIA & ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
242
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 6 S.C.R.
Kshe

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