PANCHMAHAL VADODARA GRAMIN BANK & ORS. versus D.M. PARMAR

Citation: [2011] 12 S.C.R. 690 · Decided: 21-09-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. PATNAIK, H.L. GOKHALE · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2011) 12 S.C.R. 690 
PANCHMAHAL VADODARA GRAMIN BANK & ORS. 
v. 
D.M. PARMAR 
(Civil Appeal No. 2093 of 2007) 
SEPTEMBER 21, 2011 
[A.K. PATNAIK AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.] 
Service Law - Dismissal from service - Charges against 
bank officer (manager of the bank) alleging grave lapses in 
C sanction/disbursement in many loan accounts - Order of 
dismissal by the Disciplinary Authority - Representation 
thereagainst rejected - Writ petition by the bank officer -
Single Judge of the High Court holding that though the 
Enquiry Officer had fully and properly scrutinized the relevant 
o material and gave reasonable opporlunity to the bank officer 
during the course of inquiry, there was non-application of mind 
by the disciplinary authority with regard to the quantum of 
punis~ment - Order of dismissal qi •ashed ?..nd direction 
issued for reinstatement of the bank officer but without any 
E backwages - Matter remanded back to the disciplinary 
authority for passing appropriate order with regard to the 
quantum of punishment - Said order upheld by the Division 
Bench - On appeal, held: Plea of the bank officer that non-
f urn ish i nglnon-i nspection of the documents showing 
F irregularities committed by the previous manager of the bank, 
by the Enquiry Officer was violative of principle of natural 
justice, cannot be accepted - Enquiry Officer rightly took a 
view that the said documents had no relevance to the charges 
against the bank officer in the instant case - There were ten 
G charges against the bank officer which were of serious nature 
and out of these almost eight were proved - Findings of the 
Enquiry Officer which include serious acts of negligence as 
also acts of dishonesty and lack of probity were based on 
adequate material, mainly bank records referred to, in the 
H 
690 
PANCHMAHAL VADODARA GRAMIN BANK & ORS. 691 
v. D.M. PARMAR 
inquiry report - As such the High Court rightly did not interfere A 
with the findings of the Enquiry Officer - Thus, the bank officer 
cannot avoid the punishment of dismissal from service .- It 
cannot be held that punishment of dismissal was shockingly 
or strikingly disproportionate to the gravity of charges proved 
against the bank officer - Order passed by the High Court is B 
set aside. 
Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager vs. 
Nikunja Bihari Patnaik 1996 (9) SCC 69: 1996 (1) Suppl. 
SCR 314; Chairman and M.D., United Commercial Bank vs. C 
P. C. Kakkad (2005) 4 SCC 364; General Manager(P), Punjab 
and Sind Bank and Ors. vs. Daya Singh (2010) 11 sec 233: 
2010 (9) SCR 71; Narinder Mohan Arya vs. United India 
Insurance Co.Ltd. and Ors (2006) 4 SCC 713: 2006 (3) SCR 
932; Union of India and Ors. vs. Prakash Kumar Tandon 
(2009) 2 SCC 541: 2008 (17) SCR 855; Kai/ash Nath Gupta D 
Vs. Enquiry Officer, (R.K. Rai), Allahabad Bank and Ors. 
(2003) 9 SCC 480; Administrator, Union Territory of Dadra 
and Nagar Haveli vs. Gulabhia M. Lad (2010) 5 SCC 775: 
2010 (5) SCR 309; General Manager(P), Punjab and Sind 
Bank and Ors. vs. Daya Singh (2010) 11 SCC 233: 2010 (9) 
E 
SCR 71 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference: 
1996 (1) Suppl. SCR 314 
Referred to 
Para 6 
F 
c2005) 4 sec 364 
Referred to 
Para 6 
2010 (9) SCR 71 
~eferred to 
Para 6 
2006 (3) SCR 932 
~eferred to 
Para 7, 9 
2008 (17) SCR 855 
Referred to 
Para 7 
G . 
(2003) 9 sec 480 
Referred to 
Para 8 
~ '·. 
· 2010 (5) SCR 309 
Referred to 
Para 8 
H 
A 
692 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 12 S.C.R. 
2010 (9) SCR 71 
Referred to 
Para 10 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
2093 of 2007. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 05.08.2005 and 
B 
28.09.2005 of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in LPA 
No. 1736 of 2004 and MCA No. 1883 of 2005 in LPA No. 1736 
of 2004. 
WITH 
c Civil Appeal No. 2094 of 2007. 
D 
C.U. Singh, Pramod B. Agarwala, Praveena Gautam and 
Anuj P. Agarwala for the Appellants. 
Nachiketa Joshi for the Respondent. 
The following order of the Court was delivered 
ORDE~ 
1. These are two appeals filed by way of special leave 
E 
under Article 136 of the Constitution of India against the 
common order dated 5.8.2005 in Letters Patent Appeals No. 
1736/2004 and 1869/2004 passed by the Division Bench of 
the Gujarat High Court. 
F 
2. The facts briefly are that D.M. Parmar was appointed 
in Panchmahal Vadodara Gramin Bank, 'the Bank' for short, 
as an officer by order dated 16.4.1988. He joined the bank on 
· 25.4.1988 and was confirmed in service on 9.5.1991. He 
worked as a Mana
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.