UCO BANK & ORS. versus RAJENDRA SHANKAR SHUKLA

Citation: [2018] 2 S.C.R. 636 · Decided: 15-02-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MADAN B. LOKUR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
636
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 2 S.C.R.
UCO BANK & ORS.
v.
RAJENDRA SHANKAR SHUKLA
(Civil Appeal No. 2693 of 2013)
FEBRUARY 15, 2018
[MADAN B. LOKUR AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.]
Service Law – Dismissal from service after superannuation –
Propriety of – Respondent while in charge of extension counter of
appellant-Bank issued a cheque in 1991, from his account in
appellant-Bank, for Rs.3 lakhs in favour of his brother while he
had only about Rs.1,000/- in his account – Notwithstanding the
‘stop payment’ communication by respondent to the Bank,
respondent’s brother presented the cheque and it was temporarily
encashed – Respondent was issued charge sheet in 1998–
Respondent superannuated in January, 1999 but disciplinary
proceedings continued against him and he was dismissed from
service by order of Disciplinary Authority – High Court quashed
the said order – Held: There was enormous delay of about 7 years
in issuing charge sheet against respondent, for which there is no
explanation – On this ground itself, charge sheet against respondent
is liable to be set aside –  Even if the charge against respondent
was proved, it was an action personal to him and would not amount
to misconduct within the purview of the Conduct Regulations
applicable to bank employees – Further, before the charge sheet
was issued to respondent, he was placed in a higher category as
Manager and was also allowed to cross the efficiency bar – If the
Bank was serious about proceeding against respondent for
misconduct, they would not have granted him such benefits –Also,
the respondent was denied his pension as well as subsistence
allowance which prevented him from effectively participating in the
disciplinary inquiry – On this ground also, the proceedings against
respondent are vitiated – Punishment of dismissal could not have
been imposed on respondent after his superannuation – No reason
to interfere with the judgment of High Court – Costs of Rs. 1 lakh
imposed on appellant – UCO Bank (Officers’) Service Regulations,
1979 – Regulation 20(3)(iii) – UCO Bank Officer Employees’
  [2018] 2 S.C.R. 636
   636
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
637
(Conduct) Regulations, 1976 – UCO Bank(Employees) Pension
Regulations, 1995 – Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
Service Law – Subsistence allowance – Entitlement to, during
pendency of departmental enquiry – Discussed – Access to justice.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Even if the charge was proved against the
respondent, it would not amount to a misconduct within the
purview of the Conduct Regulations applicable to bank employees
but was an action personal to him. Assuming misconduct was
proved, appropriate action could be taken under the UCO Bank
(Employees) Pension Regulations, 1995 in accordance with law
and if permissible. The respondent’s direction to ‘stop payment’
would perhaps have made him liable for some action by his brother
but certainly not by the Bank.  [Paras 10, 11][641-B-D]
1.2  There is no explanation for the enormous delay of about
7 years in issuing a charge sheet against the respondent. On this
ground itself, the charge sheet against the respondent is liable
to be set aside due to the inordinate and unexplained delay in its
issuance. What compounds the default on the part of the Bank is
that the respondent was placed in a higher category as a Manager
in  July, 1994. He was also allowed to cross the efficiency bar in
August, 1996.  Surely, if the Bank was serious about proceeding
against the respondent for misconduct, they would not only have
taken prompt action in issuing a charge sheet but would not have
granted him the benefit of being placed in a higher category or
crossing the efficiency bar. [Paras 12, 13] [641-E-H]
1.3  An employee is entitled to subsistence allowance during
an inquiry pending against him or her but if that employee is
starved of finances by zero payment, it would be unreasonable to
expect the employee to meaningfully participate in a departmental
inquiry.  Access to justice is a valuable right available to every
person, even to a criminal, and indeed free legal representation
is provided even to a criminal.  In the case of a departmental
inquiry, the delinquent is at best guilty of a misconduct but that is
no ground to deny access to pension (wherever applicable) or
subsistence allowance (wherever applicable). The respondent was
denied his pension as well as subsistence allowance which
UCO BANK & ORS. v. RAJENDRA SHANKAR SHUKLA
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
638
SUPREME COURT RE

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