THE REGIONAL MANAGER AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, STATE BANK OF INDIA, HYDERABAD AND ANR. versus S. MOHAMMED GAFFAR

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 573 · Decided: 16-08-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

'• 
THE REGIONAL MANAGER AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, 
A 
STATE BANK OF INDIA, HYDERABAD AND ANR. 
v. 
S. MOHAMMED GAFFAR 
AUGUST 16, 2002 
B 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND SHIVARAJ V. PATIL, JJ.] 
Service law: 
State Bank of India Conduct Rules-Governed by Sastry Award and C 
Desai Award-Paragraph 52I(4) and 5(j) of Sastry Award and Paragraph 
10.28 of Desai Award-Departmental proceedings-Allegation of misconduct 
-Charge proved-Award of punishment-High Court held the misconduct not 
to be gross misconduct and directed disciplinary authority to impose only 
minor punishment-On appeal-Held, charge would constitute 'gross D 
misconduct'-High Court was obliged to construe the expression 'gross 
misconduct' in the context of its definition with particular reference to 
various acts and omissions on the part of the employee. 
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 226-Jurisdiction under-
Interference with quantum of punishment imposed by Disciplinary authority- E 
Held, not permissible unless such imposition is impermissible or that it 
shocks the conscience of the Court-Service law-Departmental proceedings. 
Words and Phrases: 
Gross misconduct' and 'Minor misconduct '-Meaning of in the context F 
of State Bank of India Conduct Rules governed by Sastry Award-Paragraphs 
521(4) and 521(6). 
On charges including that or unauthorisedly adding three increments 
in his favour to which the respondent was legitimately not entitled to, be was 
placed under suspension. 
G 
After departmental enquiry the charges were proved. Disciplinary 
authority though proposed to inOict punishment of discharge from service, 
but on consideration of explanation of the respondent, took a lenient view and 
modified the proposed punishment to one of withdrawal of Special Allowances, H 
573 
574 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2002) SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A as provided in paragraph 521(5)(1) ofSastry Award and paragraph 10.28 of 
Desai Award. 
Respondent filed writ petition wherein Single Judge of High Court took 
the view that the c~arge was proved and the same constituted 'gross 
misconduct' of serious nature and hence there was no scope for interference 
B with the order of the Disciplinary Authority. Division Bench of High Court 
dismissed the writ appeal holding that challenge to the quantum of punishment 
on,the ground urged cannot be gone into. Supreme Court allowed the appeal 
directing restoration of writ appeal for fresh disposal on merit. 
Thereafter, Division Bench though categorically found that the conduct 
C would amount to 'misconduct' but concluded that it did not constitute such a 
gross misconduct within the meaning of sub paragraph 4(1) of Para 521 of 
Sastry Award and, therefore, set aside the punishment and directed disciplinary 
authority to consider the matter afresh for imposing only a minor punishment. 
D 
In appeal to this Court appellant-:Bank contended that the quantum of 
punishment could not be interfered while exercising jurisdiction under Article 
226 of the Constitution of India; and that the misconduct committed by the 
respondent would fall within the meaning of the expression 'gross misconduct' 
as envisaged in paragraph 521(4). 
E 
· Respondent contended that he having opted for voluntary retirement 
F 
under the 'State Bank of India Voluntary Retirement Scheme' has since 
retired from service, there is no justification to interfere with the High Court 
judgment 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The factum of voluntary retirement will have no impact on the 
proceedings which would involve and directly affect, having regard to the 
nature of punishment, pecuniary claims and rights of the parties and keeping 
in view that the r·espondent could assert a claim for the recovery of the 
G amounts denied by way of withdrawal.of special allowance, the issue cannot 
be avoided from being decided. [578-G, HJ 
2.1. The expression 'gross misconduct' is not to be or could not have 
been viewed or considered in the abstract or as it appeared or appealed to the 
perception of the court, at any rate, so far as the case on band is concerned. 
H The service conditions in this regard are governed by the conduct rules under 
•• 
DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY, S.B.L INDERABADv. S. MOHAMMED GAFF AR 
575 
the Sastry Award and Desai Award and Paragraph 521(4) ofSastry Award in A 
particular and in unmistakable terms has laid down as to what the expression 
'gross misconduct' shall be meant, by enumerating various instances of 
commission and omission on the pa

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