LexSTATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. versus S.N. GOYAL
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 7 S.C.R. 631 STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. A V. S.N. GOYAL (Civil Appeal Nos. 4243-4244 of 2004) MAY 2, 2008 B ,. _.Ir [H.K. SEMA AND R.V. RAVEENDRAN, JJ.] Service law: State Bank of India Officers Service Rules, Rule 68(3) - Employee found guilty of misappropriation of funds - c I. Disciplinary authority recommended imposition of penalty of reduction of pay by four stages of time scale - Appointing authority agreed with recommendations - But said order not communicated to employee - On reconsideration of matter, disciplinary authority recommended penalty of removal which D was accepted by appointing authority and was communicated to employee - Trial court held that second order imposing penalty of removal was passed by appointing authority on extraneous considerations after taking advice of Chief Vigilance Officer- The said finding affirmed by first appellate E Court and High Court - Held: Chief Vigilance Officer neither issued any direction to appointing authority to impose higher punishment nor altered finding regarding guilt - He merely gave his opinion that gravity of proved charge did not warrant leniency and therefore, suggested that quantum of penalty may F .. be examined again - So Jong as decision was not on dictates of Vigilance Department or other outside authority, but on independent consideration, order of removal cannot be faulted - It cannot be said that either act of intimating Vigilance Department about enquiry or independently re-considering G issue of penalty after receiving views of Vigilance Department amounted to be acting on extraneous material. _.... Employee found guilty of misappropriation of funds by enquiry officer -Disciplinary authority recommended ~ 631 H 632 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 7 S.C.R. A imposition of penalty of reduction of pay by four stages of time scale - Appointing authority agreed with recommendations - On reconsideration of matter, disciplinary authority recommended penalty of removal which was accepted by appointing authority and was communicated to employee - s Plea of employee that after the first order of appointing authority, it became functus officio - Held: First order was intended only to be tentative and not final as it was not communicated to respondent - Appointing Authority had only tentatively approved proposal of disciplinary authority that c lenient view be taken by imposing a penalty of reducing the pay by four stages in the time scale - Therefore, the contention that the Appointing Authority had earlier passed a final order and had become functus officio and therefore, he could not change the said order is liable to be rejected. D Bank Manager - Removal from service for misappropriation of funds - Request for reducing punishment - Held: Bank survives on the trust of its clientele and constituents - The position of Manager of Bank is matter of great trust - The employees of the Bank in particular Manager E are expected to act with absolute integrity and honesty in handling the funds of customers/borrowers of Bank - Any misappropriation, even temporary, of the funds of the Bank or its customers/borrowers constitutes a serious misconduct, inviting severe punishment- If the matter is to be viewed lightly F or leniently it will encourage other Bank employees to indulge in such activities thereby undermining the entire banking system - The request for reducing the punishment is rejected. Termination of bank employee- Specific Relief Act, 1963 - s. 14 - Bar of - Where relationship of master and servant is G purely contractual, contract of personal service is not specifically enforceable, having regard to bar contained in s.14- Even if termination of contract of employment (by dismissal or otherwise) is found to be illegal or in breach, the r"emedy of employee is oniy to seek damages and not specific H performance - When employer is statutory body, where the STATE BANK OF INDIA AND ORS. v. S.N. GOYAL 633 ~ relationship is purely governed by contract with no element of A statutory governance, contract of personal service will not be specifically enforceable - On facts, Held: Appellant-Bank is a statutory body and contract of employment was governed by Service Rules - Employee approached civil court alleging that his removal from service was in violation of the said B ;.-Jr statutory rules - When employee of statutory body whose service is terminated, pleads that
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.