ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE & ORS. versus S.S. SHEOKAND & ANR.

Citation: [2014] 3 S.C.R. 341 · Decided: 26-02-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: H.L. GOKHALE · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 3 S.C.R. 341 
ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE & ORS. 
v. 
S.S. SHEOKAND & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 3081 of 2006) 
FEBRUARY 26, 2014 
[H.L. GOKHALE AND J. CHELAMESWAR, JJ.] 
., .. 
A 
B 
SERVICE LAW: Punishment - Respondent senior 
manager in appellant bank - Allegation of purchasing third 
party cheques and drafts of huge amounts beyond his C 
authority of lending - Inquiry report - Correspondence of 
appellant bank with Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) -
Respondent's request for furnishing of papers exchanged with 
the CVC declined - Imposition of punishment of reduction of 
two stages in pay scale on advise of CVC - Request of o 
Vigilance Officer of the bank to the CVC that the penalty 
imposed deserved to be modified to a minor penalty - Not 
accepted - Writ petition by respondent seeking quashing of 
order of punishment and direction to consider him for further 
promotion - Allowed by High Court - On appeal, held: E 
Undoubtedly, there were serious allegations against the 
respondent, and such acts could not be condoned - At the 
same time, the Bank itself had taken the view in the initial 
stage that the action did not require a major penalty - High 
Court was also informed at the stage of review that the Bank F 
was considering imposition of a minor penalty - As the advise 
from eve was sought, it could not be said that this additional 
material was not part of their decision making process - When 
this report was not made available to the respondent, it is 
difficult to rule out the apprehension about the decision having G 
been taken under pressure - Any material, which goes into 
the decision making process against an employee, cannot be 
denied to him - Therefore part of judgment interfering with the 
punishment is sustained - As regards issue of promotion, the 
341 
H 
342 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
respondent had previous adverse entry in his record -
Inasmuch as the record of respondent was not satisfactory, 
there was no occasion for High Court to give any such 
direction on the footing that the respondent was denf9d the 
consideration only because he had suffered a punishment -
B 
The direction to consider him for promotion, and give him 
benefits on that footing set aside - Natural justice. 
The respondent at the relevant time was working as 
the Senior Manager in the appellant-bank. The charges 
against the respondent were that he had purchased third 
C party cheques/drafts of huge amounts beyond the 
discretionary powers of lending without completing the 
pre-sancti.on formalities and had released advance under 
the Prime Minister Rojgar Yojna, and unauthorisedly 
insisted such borrowers to provide collateral securities 
D in the shape of immovable property and guarantee in 
violation of the Scheme. The charge-sheet was followed 
by an inquiry. The inquiry officer held that the acts of 
omission and commission on the part of the respondent 
were essentially in the nature of procedural lapses and 
E the charge of lack of integrity was not substantiated and, 
therefore, charge no.1 was, partly proved and charge 
No.2 was not proved. 
After receiving the inquiry report, the respondent 
F made his representation, and pleaded that he deserved 
to be exonerated. The appellant-bank, thereafter, 
submitted all the papers to the Chief Vigilance Officer of 
the Bank to forward the same to the Chief Vigilanr.e 
Commissioner (CVC). The respondent at that stage wrote 
G to the appellant-bank seeking this correspondence with 
the eve. 
The appellant-bank declined the request of 
furnishing the correspondence of papers exchanged 
with the CVC. The Chief Vigilance Officer thereafter sent 
H a letter to the disciplinary authority that the Central 
ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE & ORS. v. S.S. 
343 
SHECK.A.ND & ANR. 
Vigilance Commission had advised to impose a major A 
penalty of reduction of two stages in pay scale, and 
thereupon the punishment of reduction of two stages in 
pay scale was imposed. The respondent filed a 
departmental appeal, which was rejected. The review 
thereof was also rejected by the Board of Directors. 
B 
The respondent filed a writ petition before the High 
Court on which an order came to be passed that the 
reviewing authority may consider the review application 
of the respondent. Time to take the decision was also C 
extended on one occasion, and the High Court was 
informed that the Bank was considering commutation of 
the major penalty. The Chief Vigilance Officer of t

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