LexRAM ASHISH DIXIT versus CHAIRMAN PURVANCHAL GRAMIN BANK LIMITED AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [201 ~~] 13 S.C.R. 332 RAM ASHISH DIXIT v. CHAIRMAN PURVANCHAL GRAMIN BANK LIMITED AND ANR. (Civil AppEtal No. 6072 of 2012) AUGUST 22, 2012 [SURINDER SINGH NllJJAR AND H.L. GOKHALE, JJ.] SERVICE LAW· Penalty - Effect of as regards promotion - Bank Officer awarded penalty of one increment for three years - Not found suitable for promotion - Held: Promotion from Junior Management Grade-I to Junior Management Grade-II is on D the basis of seniority-cum-merit - Clearly, therefore, the fact that appellant has been punished for a misconduct would form part of his record of service and would be taken into consideration whilst adjudging his suitability on the criteria of seniority-cum-merit - If on such assessment of his record of E service he is not promofod, it cannot be said to be by way of punishment - It is a non-promotion on account of appellant not reaching a suitable standard to be promoted on the basis of criteria. Union of India and Ors. vs. K. V. Jankiraman and Ors. F 1991 (3) SCR 790 = 1991 (4) sec 109 - relied on. Case Law Reference: 1991 (3) SCR 790 relied on para 7 G CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. H 6072 of 2012. From the Judgment & Order dated 15.06.2007 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in CMWP No. 38084of1999. 332 RAM ASHISH DIXIT v. CHAIRMAN PURVANCHAL 333 GRAMIN BANK LIMITED AND ANR. Dhruv Mehta, Fakhruddin, Abhay Singh, Yasmin Zafar, Dr. A Vipin Gupta, Rajesh Kumar, Yashraj Singh Deora, Sameer Pradeep Abhyankar, Anupama Dhruv, Sarv Mitter (for Mitter & Mitter Co.), K.T. Anantharam, Vasudevan Raghavan, Gopal Krishna, M.K. Chaudhary, Raj Kishore, S.K. Verma for the appearing parties. B The following order of the Court was delivered by ORDER 1. Leave granted. c 2. The appellant herein was appointed as an officer in the Gorakhpur Kshetriya Gramin Bank on 21.12.1981. He was confirmed on the post of officer [later on designated as Junior Management Grade Scale I (JMGS-1)] in the year 1983. On 18.12.1991, a charge sheet pertaining to the period from 1984 D to 1990 was prepared against him. At that time he was posted as Branch Manager, Gajpur Branch, District Gorakhpur. The charge sheet alleges that while the appellant was posted at Bhatpur Branch and Gajpur Branch as Branch Manager, he had committed a serious irregularity in the acceptance/ E disbursement of loan (of a particular account holder). The gist of the charge was that he did not verify the genuineness of the claim made by the account holder for the loan in various small amounts. The loan amount was to be used by the account holder, who was an agriculturist, for improving the agricultural F facilities on his farm. On the basis of those imputations it was alleged that the appellant has violated, Rules 17 and 19 of the Gorakhpur Kshetriya Gramin Bank (Employees) Service Regulation, 1980. It is not disputed before us that the charge sheet was served upon the appellant on January, 1982. G Thereafter a regular inquiry was held against him. The inquiry officer held that the charge No.3 was proved. Subsequently, the disciplinary authority differed with the finding recorded by the inquiry officer. The charge Nos. 1 and 2 were also held to be proved against the appellant. At the conclusion of the H 334 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 13 S.C.R. A disciplinary proceedings on 29th August, 1998 the disciplinary authority imposed punishment of stoppage of one increment for three years and 50% recovery of the sanctioned loan amount in case the Bank fails to' recover the same from the farmer to whom the loan had been grated. It appears that in a B departmental appeal filed by the appellant, by Order dated 15th December, 1998, the appellate authority modified the order of punishment, by reducin~1 the amount of recovery from 50% to Rs.5,000/-. The aforesaid order was communicated to the appellant on 7.1.1999. c 3. During the aforesaid interregnum, the appellant became eligible for promotion from the rank of Junior Management Grade-I to Middle Management Grade-II. He was duly considered for promotion by the departmental promotion committee, which was held in the year 1995. It is the pleaded D case of the respondent-Bank, in Paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit filed in the High Court (Annexure P-13 in the SLP), that the appellant was duly c:onsidered for promotion but he could not succeed on the basis of the criteria of seniority-cum-mer
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.