Y.P. SARABHAI versus UNION BANK OF INDIA AND ANR.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 853 · Decided: 22-05-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

Y.P. SARABHAI 
v. 
UNION BANK OF INDIA AND ANR. 
MAY 22, 2006 
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] 
Service Law-Dismissal from service-Bank Officer remained absent 
from duty on ground of illness and evaded transfer orders-Order of 
dismissal from service on ground of misconduct-Correctness of-Held: 
Bank Officer remained absent from his duty for a long time without any 
reasonable cause and justification-He tried to avoid transfer through all 
possible means-Concurrent findings by three different Authorities, thus 
order of dismissal calls for no interference-Union Bank of India Officer 
Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976-Constitution of India, I950-
Articles 136 and 226. 
Appellant was working as Manager (security) in the respondent 
Bank. He remained absent from duty for a long time without sanction 
of leave. He evaded his transfer orders and remained absent on the 
ground of his illness. Disciplinary authority holding him guilty of 
misconduct passed an order of dismissal from services of the Bank. Both 
Appellate Authority and High Court upheld the order. Hence, the 
present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
HELD: 1.1. Appellant-Bank Officer is not entitled to any relief in 
these proceedings. Appellant remained absent from his duty for a very 
long time without any reasonable cause and justification inspite of the 
respondent's requests to join the duty and inspite of the respondent's 
granting him further time to join the duty. The conduct of the appellant 
in remaining absent for such a long time shows that he was bent upon 
G 
to evade the transfer order in any possible manner. The reason for 
deferment of transfer given by him before the High Court and this 
Court in the writ petition and the appeal filed by him against the 
transfer order was a simple ruse to avoid the transfer. It has been 
affirmed by the Court in that proceeding that the transfer was done as 
H 
853 
854 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
per exigencies of the Bank. [856-B-D, 856-F-G) 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
1.2. The factual finding of the Disciplinary Authority after holding 
a detailed enquiry and after going through elaborate evidence are not 
assailable in the Courts unless the breach of principles of natural justice 
or the violation of any rules or any material irregularity on the face of 
record is alleged and shown. However, in the instant case, High Court 
in the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution has again gone 
into all aspects of the enquiry in detail and has come to the same factual 
finding as the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority. Such 
concurrent findings by three different Authorities including the High 
Court should not be disturbed by this Court under Article 136 of the 
Constitution. However, to meet the ends of justice, Respondent Bank is 
directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 inclusive of the balance provident 
fund of Rs. 75,930 after adjusting the loan amount due to the Bank. 
(857-A-B, 858-B-C) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2672 of 
2003. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.3.2002 of the High Court of 
Judicature at Bombay in W.P. No. 602/1999. 
Sudeer, M.B.R.S. Raju, S. Balaji, Ms. S. Sunita, S. Sachin and 
S. Srinivasan for the Appellant. 
L. Nageswar Rao and O.P. Gagar for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. : We have heard Mr. V. Sudeer, learned 
Counsel for the appellant and Mr. L. Nageswar Rao, learned Senior Counsel 
assisted by Mr. O.P. Gaggar, Advocate for the respondents. 
The appellant was appointed as a security officer of the respondent 
Bank in 1980 and was working in middle Management Cadre (Grade-III) 
as Manager Security in 1998 when he was dismissed from the services of 
the respondent Bank for alleged violation of Regulation I 3 of the Union 
H 
Bank of India Officer Employee (Conduct) Regulations, I 976. In the charge 
-
Y.P. SARABHAI v. UNION BANK OF INDIA [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 
855 
sheet, it was alleged that he was not reporting for his duties since 3.6.1997. 
It was further stated that the appellant's services were transferred to Chennai 
but the appellant did not carry out his transfer orders to Chennai and was 
remaining absent without sanction of leave. Regulation 13(1) requires that 
"no officer/employee should absent himself in case of sickness or accident 
without submitting a proper medical certificate". The Bank's Staff Circular 

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