UMESH KUMAR PAHWA versus THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS UTTARAKHAND GRAMIN BANK & ORS.

Citation: [2022] 16 S.C.R. 420 · Decided: 11-02-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.R. SHAH · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
420
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 16 S.C.R.
UMESH KUMAR PAHWA
v.
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS UTTARAKHAND GRAMIN
BANK & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 796-799 of 2022)
FEBRUARY 11, 2022
[M. R. SHAH AND B. V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.]
Constitution of India: Art.226 – Appellant who was serving
as the Branch officer at the Respondent Bank was accused of taking
bribe from the borrower of the bank – Case of borrower-complainant
that he had applied for loan which was sanctioned but the loan
amount was later reduced by the appellant – Bank issued a show
cause notice to the Appellant – Appellant denied the allegations
and in turn levied allegations of malice and bias against the
Chairman of the Bank – The disciplinary proceedings were
commenced which found the Appellant guilty and he was removed
from service – Appellant filed an appeal before the Appellate
Authority which was dismissed –Aggrieved appellant filed writ
petition before the High Court – During the pendency of this writ
petition, the Appellant filed another writ petition seeking a writ of
mandamus commanding the Bank to grant promotion from the date
when those junior to him were promoted – High Court while hearing
both writs together, dismissed the first writ petition thereby
confirming the order of removal from service without further entering
into the merits of the writ petition which was for promotion – Hence
the instant appeal – Held: The charges proved in the departmental
proceedings showed that there was no financial loss caused to the
Bank and on the contrary a decision was taken by the appellant to
reduce the loan amount in the case of the complainant, which can
be said to be the decision in the bank’s interest – Moreover, the fact
that the appellant had worked for 28 years and during those 28
years, there were no allegations against him, the punishment of
removal for the charges proved and the misconduct established, is
too harsh and disproportionate – However, considering the fact
that it can be said to be a case of loss of confidence in the employee
by the Bank, it is deemed just and proper to substitute the punishment
from that of removal of service to that of compulsory retirement – As
[2022] 16 S.C.R. 420
420
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
421
regards the second writ petition, the High Court had dismissed the
said writ petition for promotion primarily on the ground that once
he was removed from service, there was no question of considering
his case for promotion – However, the appellant claimed the
promotion from the date when his juniors came to be promoted –
The material available on record showed that in the earlier round
of litigation, the High Court had directed the Bank to consider his
case for promotion considering his ACR for the Financial Years
1999-2000 to 2003-2004 – The said exercise was required to be
done by the Bank – Therefore, the second writ petition is remanded
to the High Court to decide the same afresh in accordance with law
and on its own merits.
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The High Court has observed that the appellant
demanded a bribe from complainant solely on the basis of his
cross-examination. However, he had a reason to speak against
the appellant as his loan amount was reduced from 
 to
Rs.75,000/- by the appellant. It is the case on behalf of the
appellant that considering the material and his capacity, a decision
was taken to reduce the loan amount from Rs.1,50,000/- to
Rs.75,000/- which was taken in the interest of the bank. There
are allegations of bias against the Chairman right from the very
beginning. Even at one point of time the Chairman was charge-
sheeted for the offences under Sections 323, 354, 504, 506 IPC
on the complaint filed by the wife of the appellant and on the
basis of complaint filed by a woman delegate. It is true that
subsequent thereto the criminal proceedings were quashed by
the High Court. There were specific allegations of bias against
the Chairman and the Bank right from the initiation of the
departmental proceedings made by the appellant. [Para 3.1][425-
D-G]
2. The charges proved in the departmental proceedings
showed that there is no financial loss caused to the Bank and on
the contrary a decision was taken by the appellant to reduce the
loan amount from Rs.1,50,000/- to Rs.75,000/- in the case of the
complainant, which can be said to be the decision in the bank’s
interest. Moreover, the fact that the appellant had worked for 28
years and during those 28 years there are no allegations agains

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