BAIJNATH PRASAD Vs. THE CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA AND ORS

Supreme Court of India (Division Bench (DB)- Two Judge)

Appeal (Civil), 5698 of 2017, Judgment Date: Apr 25, 2017

                                                              NON-REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                        CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5698 OF 2017
              [@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.18228 OF 2016 ]

BAIJNATH PRASAD                                                Appellant(s)

                                VERSUS

THE CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA AND ORS                             Respondent(s)


                               J U D G M E N T

KURIAN, J.

1.    Leave granted.
2.    Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the appellant  on  the
ground  that  he  knowingly  made  a  false  statement  pertaining  to   his
employment  in  the  Bank.   Though  he  was  matriculate,  he  claimed  the
appointment as a sub-staff, producing a certificate  of  having  passed  8th
standard.  Thereafter, he appeared for matriculation again with a  different
date of birth, as  alleged,  and  after  having  passed  the  matriculation,
secured promotion to the post of Clerk.

3.    While continuing as Clerk, the  respondent-Bank  received  information
that the appellant had made  a  deliberate  false  statement  regarding  his
education for securing the employment in  the  Bank.   Thus,  on  initiating
disciplinary action, he was  discharged  from  service  with  superannuation
benefits.  The departmental remedies were unsuccessful to the appellant.

4.     In the High Court, the learned Single  Judge  took  a  view  that  he
should be reinstated by denying one increment with cumulative effect,  based
on a circular.  On appeal, the Division Bench found that  the  circular  was
not applicable in the case of the appellant and hence, the order  passed  by
the learned Single Judge was set aside and the order of discharge passed  by
the Bank was restored.

5.    Thus aggrieved, the appellant is before this Court in appeal,  by  way
of special leave.

6.    On 10.04.2017, the Court passed the following order :-
      “Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1/Bank  is  directed  to
get instruction as to whether the misconduct alleged against the  petitioner
would come under gross misconduct and whether  the  gravest  punishments  of
discharge was the only punishment permissible  for  the  alleged  misconduct
and why a lesser punishment was not equitable in the circumstances.”

7.     Sh. Ashish Wad,  learned  counsel,  inviting  our  reference  to  the
bipartite settlement, submitted that as a matter of fact, the appellant  was
visited  with  only  a  lesser  punishment  since  dismissal,  removal   and
compulsory retirement were the other higher modes  of  punishment,  but  the
Bank has taken a lenient view by imposing the punishment of  discharge.   On
the contrary, Mr. Subhro Sanyal, learned counsel for the appellant,  submits
that the other punishments of reduction of  scale  of  pay  to  two  stages,
stoppage of an increment without cumulative effect,  withdrawal  of  special
pay, warning or entry of  adverse  remarks  or  fine  were  also  prescribed
punishments for proved gross misconduct.

8.    Having extensively heard the learned counsel  appearing  on  both  the
sides and having regard also to the fact  that  the  appellant  is  only  46
years of age and that he belongs to a backward class, we  are  of  the  view
that this is an eminently fit case for invocation  of  Article  142  of  the
Constitution of India for doing complete justice.

9.    The appeal is, hence, disposed of as follows :-
i)    The punishment imposed on the appellant  shall  stand  substituted  as
reduction to the lower rank of sub-staff from the date of his  promotion  to
the post of Clerk.
ii)   The appellant shall be treated and continued as sub-staff  only,  till
his superannuation.
iii) He shall be reinstated in service within two weeks.
iv)   He shall not be  entitled  to  any  backwages.   However,  the  period
between the discharge and reinstatement shall be treated as service for  all
other purposes in the category of sub-staff.  However,  there  shall  be  no
recovery of any salary drawn by the appellant as a Clerk.

10.   Needless also to make it  clear  that  being  an  order  passed  under
Article 142 of the Constitution of India, this case shall not be treated  as
a precedent.
      No costs.
                                                   .......................J.
                                                           [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]


                                                   .......................J.
                                                            [ R. BANUMATHI ]

      New Delhi;
      April 25, 2017.