/2022 INSC 0133/
1
[REPORTABLE]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.796­799 OF 2022
Umesh Kumar Pahwa .. Appellant
Versus
The Board of Directors Uttarakhand 
Gramin Bank & Ors.     .. Respondents
J U D G M E N T
M. R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
common judgment and order dated 17.07.2018 passed by the
High   Court   of   Uttarakhand   at   Nainital   in   Writ   Petition   (S/B)
No.4 of 2013 and Writ Petition (S/B) No.267 of 2013 as well as
the   order   passed   in   the   review   applications   dismissing   the

2
same vide common order dated 08.01.2020, the employee ­ the
original writ petitioner has preferred the present appeals.
2. That the appellant herein was serving as a Branch Officer
at Pratap Pur Branch of the Respondent – Bank.   He has put
in   28   years’   of   service.     While   he   was   serving   at   Pratap   Pur
Branch   during   the   period   27.06.2008   to   21.11.2008,   a
complaint was made against the appellant by one borrower of
the Bank namely Karamjeet Singh on 17.09.2008 alleging that
the appellant had sanctioned the limit of loan of Rs.1,50,000/­
which   was   later   on   reduced   to   Rs.75,000/­.     Four   other
persons   also   made   the   complaint   against   the   appellant.     On
receiving   the   complaint   against   the   appellant   ­   the   Chairman
of   the   Bank   transferred   him   to   another   branch   of   the   Bank,
during   pendency   of   the   inquiry   pertaining   to   aforesaid
complaints.   A show cause notice was issued to the appellant
seeking   his   explanation.     The   appellant   replied   to   the   said
show   cause   notice   stating   therein   that   the   allegations   in   the
complaint   are   baseless,   frivolous   and   fabricated.     He   also
made   allegations   of   malice   and   bias   against   the   Chairman   of

3
the Bank.   The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against
the appellant.  A charge­sheet was issued to him and following
charges were framed:
“1.   He   did   not   discharge   his   duties   with   integrity
and honesty and took such actions and committed
such   omissions   which   showed   lack   of   probity   and
integrity on his part. 
2.   He   committed   serious   violations   of   duty   and
breach   of   trust   reposed   in   him   by   the   Bank   and
misused his official position. 
3.   In   the   performance   of   his   official   duties   and   in
exercise   of   powers   conferred   on   him,   he
unauthorizedly   exceeded   his   authority   /   powers
and   did   not   report   the   same   for   /   or   obtained
approval / confirmation from higher authorities for
such excessive actions. 
4. He flouted instructions of the higher authorities.
5. He adopted such steps and took such actions as
were derogatory, prejudicial and detrimental to the
interest of the bank. 
6.   He   misrepresented   and   suppressed   material
facts from higher authorities. 
7. He knowingly and willfully violated Bank’s rules
and established procedures for his personal gains. 
8. Due to his acts, bank is likely to suffer financial
losses. 
9.   He   committed   such   acts   which   tarnished   the
image of the Bank. 

4
10.   He   did   acts   unbecoming   of   an   officer   of   the
Bank”
2.1 That   the   Bank   decided   to   initiate   an   inquiry   for  a  major
punishment.     The   appellant   participated   in   the   departmental
inquiry.     The   complainant,   Karamjeet   Singh   was   also
examined   during   the   inquiry.     The   inquiry   officer   held   the
charges No.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 and 10 as proved.   On receipt
of   the   inquiry   report   the   appellant   submitted   his   reply   and
contended that the findings of the Inquiry Officer are perverse
to   the   material   placed   on   record   and   against   the   principle   of
natural   justice.     He   also   made   allegations   of   bias   against   the
Chairman   of   the   Bank.     Thereafter   after   considering   the
inquiry   report   and   giving   opportunity   to   the   appellant,   the
disciplinary  authority/Chairman of the Bank passed an order
of   removal   of   the   appellant   from   service.     The   appellant
preferred   an   appeal   before   the   Appellate   Authority   and   the
Appellant   Authority   dismissed   the   appeal   vide   order   dated
20.12.2011.     Feeling   aggrieved   against   the   order   of   removal

5
from   service,   the   appellant   preferred   the   present   writ   petition
before the High Court being Writ Petition (S/B) No.4 of 2013.
2.2 During  the pendency of Writ Petition (S/B) No.4 of 2013
the   appellant   also   preferred   another   Writ   Petition   No.267   of
2013   seeking   a   writ   of   mandamus   commanding   the   Bank   to
grant promotion  from  Scale II to  Scale  III from  the  date when
those   junior   to   him   were   promoted   w.e.f.   30.03.2005.     Both
the   writ   petitions   were   heard   together.     By   the   impugned
judgment   and   order   the   High   Court   has   dismissed   Writ
Petition   (S/B)   No.4   of   2013   confirming   the   order   of   removal
from   service   of   the   appellant.     As   the   order   of   removal   had
been   confirmed,   the   High   Court   without   further   entering   into
the   merits   of   the   case   also   dismissed   Writ   Petition   (S/B)
No.267 of 2013 which was for seeking promotion from Scale II
to   Scale   III   officer   from   the   date   when   those   juniors   to   the
appellant were promoted i.e. w.e.f. 30.03.2005.
Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
common   judgment   and   order   passed   in   Writ   Petition   (S/B)

6
No.267   of   2013   as   well   as   W.P.   (S/B.)   No.4   of   2013,   the
employee delinquent has preferred the present appeals.
3. We   have   heard   the   learned   counsel   for   the   respective
parties at length.  
3.1 Having   considered   the   impugned   judgment   and   order
passed   by   the   High   Court   and   even   the   findings   recorded   by
the Inquiry officer it appears that the High Court has observed
that   the   appellant   demanded   a   bribe   from   Karamjeet   Singh
solely   on   the   basis   of   his   cross­examination.     However,   it   is
required to be noted that he had a reason to speak against the
appellant as his loan amount was reduced from Rs.1,50,000/­
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 charge­sheeted for the offences under

7
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.     Be
that it may, there were specific allegations of bias against the
Chairman   and   the   Bank   right   from   the   initiation   of   the
departmental proceedings made by the appellant.
3.2 Even   looking   to   the   charges   proved   in   the   departmental
proceedings   we   find   that   as   such,   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   Karamjeet   Singh
­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 against him, in the facts and circumstances of the
case, we are of the opinion that the punishment of removal for
the   charges   proved   and   the   misconduct   established,   is   too
harsh   and   disproportionate.     However,   considering   the   fact

8
that   it   can   be   said   to   be   a   case   of   loss   of   confidence   in   the
employee   by   the   Bank,   we   deem   it   just   and   proper   to
substitute   the   punishment   from   that   of   removal   of   service   to
that of compulsory retirement.
4. So far  as the  submission on behalf of the appellant  that
the   appellant   has   not   conducted   any   misconduct   and   the
finding   recorded   by   the   inquiry   officer   on   the   charges   proved
are   perverse   is   concerned,   the   High   Court   is   justified   in
holding   that   in   the   limited   jurisdiction   available   to   the   High
Court   in   exercise   of   powers   under   Article   226   of   the
Constitution   of   India,   the   High   Court   is   not   required   to
reappreciate   the   evidence   and/or   interfere   with   the   findings
recorded   by   the   inquiry   officer   accepted   by   the   disciplinary
authority.     However,   as   observed   hereinabove   the   order   of
removal   of   service   can   be   said   to   be   disproportionate   to   the
charges and misconduct held to be proved.
5. Now   in   so   far   as   the   dismissal   of   Writ   Petition   (S/B)
No.267 of 2013 is concerned, at the outset it is required to be

9
noted   that   the   High   Court   has   not   dealt   with   and   considered
the   same   on   merits   independently.     The   High   Court   has
dismissed the said writ petition for promotion primarily on the
ground   that   once   he   is   removed   from   service   there   is   no
question of considering his case for promotion.   However, it is
required to be noted that the appellant claimed the promotion
from Scale II to Scale III from the date when his juniors came
to be promoted w.e.f. 30.03.2005.  From the material available
on   record,   it   appears   that   in   the   earlier   round   of   litigation
being   Writ   Petition   (S/B)   No.65   of   2012,   the   High   Court   had
directed   the   Bank   to   consider   his   case   for   promotion
considering   his   ACR   for   the   Financial   Years   1999­2000   to
2003­2004.   The said exercise was required to be done by the
Bank.     Therefore,   so   far   as   the   Writ   Petition   (S/B)   No.267   of
2013 is concerned, the same is required to be remanded to the
High  Court  to  decide  the   same  afresh  in   accordance  with  law
and on its own merits.
6. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above the
impugned   Judgment   and   Order   passed   by   the   High   Court

10
passed in  Writ Petition  (S/B) No.4 of 2013 is hereby  modified
to   the   extent   substituting   the   punishment   from   that   of
removal of service to that of compulsory retirement.
  The  appellant  shall   be  entitled  to   all  the  benefits  which
may   be   available   to   him   by   converting   the   punishment   from
that of removal of service to that of compulsory retirement.  So
far as the impugned judgment and order of the High Court in
Writ Petition (S/B) No.267 of 2013 is concerned, in view of the
above and for  the reason stated above and as the High Court
has  not decided  the said  writ  petition  on  merits, we  set  aside
the   impugned   judgment   and   order  as   well   as   the   order   dated
08.01.2020   dismissing   the   said   Writ   Petition   (S/B)   No.267   of
2013  and   remand  the  matter   to   the   High   Court  to   decide   the
same afresh in accordance with law and on its own merits.

11
Present   appeals   are   accordingly   allowed   to   the   aforesaid
extent.     However,   in   the  facts   and  circumstances   of  the   case,
there shall be no order as to costs.                                  
………………………………….J.
                               [M.R. SHAH]
NEW DELHI;          ..……………………………….J.
FEBRUARY 11, 2022                          [B.V. NAGARATHNA]