RAMESH CHANDRA SHARMA versus PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ANR.

Citation: [2007] 7 S.C.R. 585 · Decided: 18-05-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Disposed off
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

.-. _,__ 
RAMESH CHANDRA SHARMA 
A 
v. 
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ANR. 
MAY 18, 2007 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.] 
B 
Service law: 
Punjab National Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) 
Regulations, I 977: Regulation 20(3)(iii). 
C 
Dismissal-Disciplinary proceedings-Continuation of-After 
superannuation of the delinquent officer-Permissibility-Disciplinary 
proceedings initiated against delinquent bank officer for acting negligently 
and not discharging his duties with utmost integrity-Delinquent officer D 
retired on superannuation during the pendency of the disciplinary 
proceedings-The charges were proved-The Disciplinary Authority, while 
holding the delinquent officer guilty of the proved charges, imposed upon 
him a 111ajor penalty of dismissal from the Bank's service-Appellate Authority 
dismissed the appeal-The High Court substituted the order of dismissal by 
the order of withholding all retiral benefits-However, the High Court held E 
that no recovery of the loss to the Bank was to be made from the delinquent 
officer-Correctness of-Held: It was permissible for the Bank to continue 
with the disciplinary proceedings on the basis of Regulation 20(3)(iii) even 
after the delinquent officer attained the age of superannuation-Ordinarily 
the High Court should not interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed 
by the Disciplinary Authority unless the punishment was impermissible in F 
law or wholly disproportionate to the misconduct-Hence, High Court erred 
in substituting the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority-
Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, 
S. 19(2)-Punjab National Bank Employees (Pension) Regulations, 1995, 
Regs. 22. 43 and 48-Punjab National Bank (Officers'.) Service Regulations. G 
1979. 
The appellant was working in the capacity of a Manager in one of the 
branches of the respondent-Bank. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated 
against the appellant, inter alia, for acting negligently and not discharging 
585 
II 
586 
SliPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2007) 7 S.C.R. 
A his duties with utmost integrity. The charges against the 8p1Jellant were proved. 
The Disciplinary Authority, while holding the appellant guilty of the 
. proved charges, decided to impose upon him a major penalty of dismissal from 
the Bank's service in terms of clause 4 of the Punjab National Bank Officer 
Employees' (Discipline & Appeals) Regulations, 1977. The appeal filed by the 
B appellant was dismissed by the appellate authority. 
Being aggrieved, the appellant filed a writ petition before the High 
Court. One of the contentions raised in the writ petition was that the appellant 
having been allowed to superannuate on his reaching the age of 
C superannuation, the continuation of the disciplinary proceedings was bad in 
law. 
D 
E 
F 
The High Court substituted the order of dism_iss.al by th.e order of 
withholding all retiral benefits. However, the High Court held tliat no recovery 
of the loss to the Bank was to be madefrom the appellant Hence the appeal. 
The following questions arose before the Court:-
1. 
Whether, in terms of the rules governing the terms and conditions 
ofservices ofthl employees of the Bank, was it permissible for 
it to continue the disciplinary proceedings despite the fact that 
the respondent attained .the age of superannuation? 
2. 
Whether the High Court could have, in the facts and 
circumstances of the case, substituted the punishment imposed 
by the Appointing Authority and the Appellate Authority by its 
own? 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The question as to whether the continuation of a disciplinary 
proceeding would be permissible or the employer will have to take· recourse 
only to the Pension Rules would depend upon the terms and conditions of the 
services of the employee and the.power of the disciplinary .authority conferred 
G by reason ofa statue or statutory. rules. I Para 1211594-8-Cf 
DisciplinaryAuthority-cum-Regional Manag~r v. Nikunja Bihari 
Patf1!2ik. 1199619 SCC 69, Unio,n of India v. Suhedar ~am Narain, 1199818 
~ 
SCC 52, State o/U.P. v. Bhram Datt Sharma, AIR (1987) SC 943 and State of 
H U.P. v. Harihar Bhole Nath, (2006) 11SCALE322, referred to. 
., 
RAMESH CHANDRA SHARMA \'.PUNJAB NATl01'AL BANK 
587 
1.2. Therefore, it was permissible for the Bank to continue with the A· 
. .- disciplinary proceedings relying on or on the basis of Regulation 20(3)(iii) 
of the Punjab National Bank Officer
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.