PAWAN KUMAR AGARWALA versus GENERAL MANAGER-II & APPOINTING AUTH. STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: [2015] 15 S.C.R. 555 · Decided: 17-11-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V. GOPALA GOWDA, AMITAVA ROY · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2015) 15 S.C.R. 555 
PAWAN KUMARAGARWALA 
v. 
GENERAL MANAGER-II &APPOINTING AUTH. STATE 
BANK OF INDIA & ORS. 
A 
(Civil Appeal No. 13448 of2015) 
B 
NOVEMBER 17, 2015 
[V. GOPALA GOWDAAND AMITAVA_ ROY, JJ.] 
Service Law - Misconduct - Penalty - Allegation c 
against the appellant that he filled the loan application of a 
borrower and influenced the manager of another branch of 
the bank to sanction loan despite knowing that the borrower 
had earlier taken loan from his branch and thereby appellant 
failed to protect the interests of the bank - Meanwhile, in the 
disciplinary proceedings against the manager of the other D 
branch, authority awarded minor penalty of one stage lower 
in time scale for a period of one year - However in case of 
appellant, order of dismissal passed - Appellant filed writ 
petition - Single jutlge of High Court found that there was 
unfairness in the enquiry as the list of witnesses and the . E 
copies of the documents were not given to the appellant and 
granted reinstatement with all service benefits and back 
wages to the extent of 25% - On challenge by respondents, 
Division Bench modified the punishment by imposing penalty 
of reduction of one increment for one year and reinstatement F 
without back wages since he was already drawing pension-
On appeal, held: It was a case of denial of fair opportunity to 
the appellant in gross violation of the procedural 
requirements of the Service Rules. -
The finding of the 
enquiry officer on the charges was vitiated on account of non-
G 
compliance of the statutory Rules and principles of natural 
justice -
In the absence of evidence, the order of 
reinstatement without full back wages was unjustified in law-
High Court should have made deduction of the amount of 
H 
555 
556 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 15 S.C.R. 
A pension received by the appellant after awarding full back 
-wages for the period in question - Order of Division Bench 
set aside and order of single judge restored and modified 
with regard to award of reinstatement with full back wages. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
State Bank of India and Ors. vs. K.P. Narayanan 
Kutty 2003 (1) SCR 391 : (2003) 2 sec 449; S. 
A. Venkataraman vs. U.0.1. andAnr. AIR 1954 SC 
375 : 1954 SCR 1150; Union of India vs. T.R. 
Varma AIR 1957 SC 882 : 1958 SCR 499; 
Punjab National Bank vs. Kunj 1998 (1) Suppl. 
SCR 22 : (1998) 7 SCC 84; William Vincent 
Vita re/Ii v. Fred A. Seaton, Secretary of the Interior, 
et al 359 U.S. 535 (1959); R.D. Shetty vs. 
International Airport Authority 1979 (3) 
SCR 1014 :1979 (3) SCC 489; Deepali Gundu 
Surwase 
vs. 
Kranti Junior Adhyapak 
Mahavidyalaya (D. ED.) & Ors. 2013 (9) SCR1 : 
(2013) 10 sec 324 - referred to. 
Case Law Reference 
2003 (1) SCR 391 
referred to 
Para 11 
AIR 1954 SC 375 
referred to 
Para 11 
1958 SCR 499 
referred to 
Para 12 
1998 (1) Suppl. SCR 22 
referred to 
Para 16 
(359 U.S. 535 (1959) 
referred to 
Para 17 
979 (3) SCR 1014 
referred to 
Para 18 
2013 (9) SCR 1 
referred to 
Para 19 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 
H 
13448 of 2015. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.11.2014 of the 
High Court at Guahati Principal Seat at Guahati in W. A. No. 
192of2014. 
PAWAN KUMARAGARWALA v. GENERAL MANAGER-II & 557 
APPOINTINGAUTH. STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. 
Vijay Hansaria, Sr. Adv., Shailesh Madiyal, Gautam A 
Prabhakar, Ms. Sneha K., Avnish Pandey, Advs. for the 
Appellant. 
Gaurav Agrawal, Adv., for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was passed: 
B 
ORDER 
1. Leave granted. 
2. This appeal by special leave is filed by the appellant 
as he is aggrieved of the judgment and order dated 26.11.2014 C 
passed by the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court at 
Guwahati in Writ Appeal No. 192 of 2014 holding that there 
was no negligence on the part of the respondent (appellant 
herein) in disbursing the loan and he had taken appropriate 
steps, however, the other Manager of that Branch, who has o 
been found guilty and levied with lesser penalty, therefore, the 
minor penalty would visit the respondent (appellant herein). 
Accordingly, the Division Bench of the High Court modified the 
penalty of dismissal to one of reduction of one increment for 
one year and further directed the appellant to be reinstated in 
E 
service with no back wages forthe reason that he had already 
been taking pension for the period and further clarified that 
the period of dismissal and the reinstatement shall be reckoned 
as a continuity of ser
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.