STATE BANK OF MYSORE AND ORS. ETC. versus M.C. KRISHNAPPA

Citation: [2011] 7 S.C.R. 188 · Decided: 06-07-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AFTAB ALAM · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
8 
[2011) 7 S.C.R. 188 
STATE BANK OF MYSORE AND ORS. ETC. 
V. 
M.C. KRISHNAPPA 
(Civil Appeal Nos.5055-5056 of 2011) 
JULY 6, 2011 
[AFTAB ALAM AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.] 
Service law: Dismissal from service - Employee in 
officer grade found guilty of misappropriation of funds - Order 
C of removal from service - Reviewing authority modified the 
punishment and reduced it to demotion to cadre of clerk with 
a further bar against promotion for a period of seven years -
Accepting same, employee rejoined but after expiry of seven 
years filed writ petition challenging the punishment awarded 
D to him - High Court rejected the contention that the employee 
could not be put down in the clerks' cadre and his demotion 
could only be confined to a lower rark in the officer grade itself, 
however, found that the ·bar again::it the promotion for the 
period of seven years was harsh and set it aside - On appeal, 
E held: It is well settled that punishment is primarily a function 
of the Management and the courts rarely interfere with the 
quantum of punishment - In the instant case, the proven 
charge against the employee was of financial iffegularities 
and of making fraudulent withdrawals deriving pecuniary gain 
F for himself - In a bank an offence of this kind is one of the 
most serious offences and punishment of removal from 
service could not be said to be unreasonable or unduly harsh 
- Reviewing Authority modified the order of punishment and 
gave him a lighter punishment which was accepted by 
employee without ado - In those facts, there was no scope 
G for interference with the punishment on a purely subjective 
view taken by the High Court - Order of the High Court set 
aside and writ petition by employee dismissed - Judicial 
review. 
H 
188 
STATE BANK OF MYSORE AND ORS. ETC. v. M.C. 189 
KRISHNAPPA 
The respondent was employee of the appellant-
A 
Bank. He was originally inducted in the service of the 
appellant-Bank in the clerical cadre but at the material 
time, by virtue of promotions, he was in the Junior 
Management Grade Scale-I. He was served with a charge 
sheet on the ground that he conducted misappropriation 
B 
of funds of the appellant-Bank. The charges were duly 
I 
established in a departmental enquiry and the 
disciplinary authority passed the order of his removal 
from service. The appellate authority upheld the order of 
the disciplinary authority. The reviewing authority, c 
however, modified the punishment and reduced it from 
removal from service to demotion from the cadre of 
Junior Management Grade Scale-I to the cadre of clerk 
·· with a further bar against promotion for a period of seven 
para. 
D 
The respondent rejoined the service accepting the 
punishment given to him in terms of the review order. But 
after the expiry of the period of seven years, he filed a 
writ petition before the High Court challenging the 
punishment awarded to him. The Single Judge of the 
E 
High Court rejected the contention that the respondent 
could not be put down in the clerks' cadre and his 
demotion could only be confined to a lower rank in the 
officer grade itself. However, the Single Judge found that 
the bar against the promotion for the period of seven 
F 
years was harsh and set it aside subject to the 
qualification that the order would not affect the promotion 
of other employees and their seniority. The appellant-
Bank and the respondent filed intra court appeals. The 
Division Bench of the High Court dismissed both. The 
G 
instant appeal was filed challenging the order of the High 
Court. 
Disposing of the appeals, the Court 
HELD: It is well settled that punishment is primarily 
H 
190 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 7 S.C.R. 
A a function of the Management and the courts rarely 
interfere with the quantum of punishment. In the instant 
case the proven charge against the respondent was of 
financial irregularities and of making fraudulent 
withdrawals deriving pecuniary gain for himself. In a bank 
B an offence of this kind is one of the most serious offences 
and the disciplinary authority had passed an order of 
removal against the respondent. In the facts of the case 
even that punishment could not be said to be 
unreasonable or unduly harsh. The Reviewing Authority 
c modified the order of punishment and gave him a lighter 
punishment instead. At that time the respondent 
accepted it without ado .. In those facts there was no 
scope for interference with the punishment on a purely 
subject

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.