/2022 INSC 0134/
NON­REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 2949 OF 2011
UNITED BANK OF INDIA …..APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
BACHAN PRASAD LALL ….RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
Rastogi, J.
1. The   appellant,   being   dissatisfied   with   the   judgment   of   the
Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   dated   11 th
  May,   2010,   has
preferred the present appeal.
2. The   facts   relevant   for   the   purpose   culled   out   from   the   record
are   that   the   respondent   employee   joined   service   as   a   Clerk­cum­
Typist   in   the   year   1973   and   while   in   service   committed   serious
irregularities   in   discharge   of   his   duties,   was   placed   under
1

suspension by an Order dated 7 th
 August, 1995. He was later served
with the charge­sheet along  with the statement of allegation on 2 nd
March   1996.     After   the   disciplinary   inquiry   was   conducted   in
accordance   with   the   disciplinary   rules   of   the   Bank,   the   inquiry
officer   found   the   charges   proved.     In   consequence   thereof,   the
respondent   was   dismissed   from   service   by   an   Order   dated   6 th
December,   2000   and   the   appellate   authority   also   rejected   the
appeal preferred by the respondent employee by an Order dated 24 th
April, 2004.
3. The   reference   was   made   for   adjudication   by   the   appropriate
Government   in   exercise   of   its   powers   under   clause(d)   of   sub­
Section(1)   and   sub­Section   (2A)   of   Section   10   of   the   Industrial
Disputes  Act,  1947(hereinafter  being  referred  to  as  the  “Act  1947”)
vide Order dated 27 th
 July, 2005.  The same is as under:­
“Whether   the   action   of   the   management   of   United   Bank   of   India,
Patna   in   awarding   the   punishment   of   dismissal   to   Shri   Bachan
Prasad   Lal,   clerk­cum­typist   of   Katihar   Branch   of   UBI   for   alleged
involvement   of   fraud   is   legal   and   justified?     If   not,   to   what   relief
Shri Bachan Prasad Lal is entitled?”
4. The   learned   Tribunal,   after   taking   into   consideration   the
record of the domestic inquiry, finally arrived to the conclusion that
2

inquiry was fair and proper and the charges stood proved but while
exercising   power   under   Section   11A   of   the   Act   1947,   the   Tribunal
under   its   Award   dated   30 th
  December,   2005   observed   that   the
punishment awarded to the respondent employee of dismissal is not
commensurate with the charge levelled against him and accordingly
while   upholding   the   allegations   levelled   against   the   respondent   in
reference   to   which   the   inquiry   was   conducted,   substituted   the
punishment   of   dismissal   with   an   order   of   reinstatement   after
lowering down of two stages in his basic salary that he was getting
at the time of his dismissal.   It was also held that there will be no
payment of salary and allowances for the period of his suspension­
save and except payment of subsistence allowance.
5. On a writ petition being preferred by the appellant in assailing
the interference made by the Tribunal in exercise of its power under
Section 11A of the Act 1947, the learned Single Judge by an Order
dated   25 th
  July,   2006,   dismissed   the   petition   holding   that   the
Tribunal   has   a   discretion   under   Section   11A   of   the   Act   1947   and
held   that   it   has   rightly   been   exercised   which   further   came   to   be
3

challenged at the instance of the appellant in Letters Patent Appeal
before the Division Bench of the High Court.
6. The   Division   Bench   has   upheld   the   finding   returned   by   the
Tribunal   and   confirmed   by   the   learned   Single   Judge   under   the
order   impugned  which   has  been   categorically   referred  to   in   para  3
of   the   Order.       However,   the   Division   Bench   was   not   inclined   to
interfere despite the fact that the respondent was found guilty after
regular inquiry been held for misappropriation of funds and further
observed   that   there   should   not   be   any   compassion   in   the   judicial
proceedings which should be shown to the delinquent who commits
such   nature   of  fraud  in   discharge  of   his  duties   but  still  refused   to
interfere   with   the   Order   of   the   Tribunal   for   the   reason   that   the
respondent employee by that time had retired on attaining  the age
of superannuation in 2007.  The relevant para is as under:­
“3. It appears to us that the Tribunal agreed with the finding of
fact   recorded   by   the   learned   Inquiry   Officer   that   had   found   him
guilty of misappropriation of funds.  However, the learned Tribunal
also observed that it was perhaps a case of bona fide error leading
to alteration in the punishment.  We feel that the learned Tribunal
was not justified in disagreeing with the finding of fact recorded by
the learned Inquiry Officer.  It does not appear to us to be a case of
bona   fide   error,   but   was   really   a   case   of   well   though­out   plan   to
divert funds from other accounts to a fictitious account opened by
4

him. In such a situation, reduction in punishment also becomes a
case of  uncalled for  interference.  The  learned Tribunal also seems
to have given weightage to the domestic situation in the employee's
family, which we once again feel to be a wholly unjustified ground
to dilute the guilt of the employee. Law is well settled that needless
compassion should not be injected into judicial proceedings. We do
not   agree   with   the   order   of   the   learned   Tribunal   nor   that   of   the
learned   Writ   Court.   However,   we   would   have   interfered   with   the
order of the learned Tribunal but we refrain from doing so because
the   employee   has  already   reached   the   age   of   superannuation   way
back in the year 2007 .”
      (emphasis supplied)
7. We   have   heard   learned   counsel   for   the   parties   and   also
perused the material available on record.
8. The   respondent   employee   was   served   with   the   charge­sheet
dated 2 nd
 March, 1996 with the following allegations:­
“1.   The   charge   sheet   dated   2.3.96   against   Sri   B.P.   Lal   reads   as
follows:
(a)   Sri   Bachan   Prasad   Lal   was   posted   as   Typist­cum­Clerk   in
Katihar   Branch   from   4.12.90   to   1.7.95.   During   this   tenure   he
also worked as Temporary Special Assistant & Teller Clerk.
(b)   During   this   tenure,   on   different   dates,   he   prepared   nine
fraudulent   credit   transfer   vouchers   aggregating   Rs.53,465/­
without   giving   full   details/description   of   F/D   A/cs   numbers   in
five   vouchers   and   in   the   rest   mentioning   A/c   no.   of   different
F/D   account   holders   on   the   pretext   of   payment   of   interest
towards fixed deposit  account and got the full amount credited
in S/B A/c No.8762 in the name of Smt. Asha Devi.
(c)     It is revealed that no F/D A/c in the name of Asha Devi could
be  traced  on  the  basis  of  available  branch  records/documents.
In   case   of   Transfer   Credit   Vouchers   bearing   F/D   A/c   No.
persons other than Smt. Asha Devi no such mandate for credit
5

of monthly interest was given by the respective account holders
hence preparation of vouchers were unwarranted.
(d)  It is further revealed that he had irregularly opened the S.B. a/c
No.8762 in the name of Smt. Asha Devi who is not ... illegible ...
(e)     He   is   a   Special   Assistant   released/   called   the   credit   vouchers
posted   by   the  Ledger   keener   to  the  credit   of  S.B.   a/c   no.  8762
with   but   ensuring   that   many   of   such   transfer   credit   vouchers
were not signed by the other Officials as second signatory.
(f)   The   amount   so   credited   in   the   S.B/   a/c   no.   8762   were
subsequently   withdrawn   by   withdrawal   slips   on   various   dates.
The   draws   signatures   as   appearing   on   the   above   with   drawal
slips   as   well   as   on   the   back   of   there   slips   were   forged   by   him
and the said signatures on the withdrawal slips were verified by
him and also passed for payment by him.
(g)     Moreover,   he   received   payment   of   the   withdrawal   slips   forging
the signatures of the drawer on the back of the withdrawal slips
of   dated   9.1.93   for   Rs.   5,   100/­,   25.8.94   for   Rs.   10,000/­,
3.9.94   for   Rs.   9,000/­   16.9.96.   for   Rs.10,000/­   &   27.1.95   for
Rs. 5,000/­
(h)  In order to accommodate amount of the above fraudulent credit
entries   he   altered/adjusted   &   debit   and   credit   entries   in   the
transfer   journal   as   well   as   amount   of   corresponding   debit
vouchers on 19.12.90, 20.12.90, 14.1.91 & 11.7.91 without any
authentication. He also did not mention the journal number on
the vouchers.
Thus,   by   his   aforesaid   acts   he   perpetrated   fraudulent   mis­
appropriation of Rs. 53,465/­ and thereby causing financial loss to
the Bank.”
9. The nature of allegation against the respondent employee was
of   fraudulently   preparing   nine   credit   transfer   vouchers   on   various
dates   on   the   pretext   of   payment   of   interest   towards   fixed   deposits
and   crediting   the   whole   amount   to   one   saving   account   opened   in
6

the   name   of   one   Smt.   Asha   Devi   (admittedly   the   fake   account
prepared   by   respondent   employee).     In   order   to   adjust   the   said
amount, he manipulated the other book records of the Bank using
forged   signatures.     After   such   nature   of   allegations   stood   proved,
the disciplinary authority, after taking into consideration the record
of inquiry and the post held by the respondent employee, punished
him with the penalty of dismissal from service.
10. The finding of guilt recorded by the inquiry officer in his report
was   confirmed   at   all   later   stages   by   the   disciplinary/appellate
authority  and even after  judicial scrutiny  by  the Division Bench in
the impugned judgment but still refrained from interference on the
premise that the employee had superannuated in the year 2007. 
11. In our considered view, looking into seriousness of the nature
of   allegations   levelled   against   the   respondent   employee,   the
punishment of dismissal inflicted upon him in no manner could be
said   to   be   shockingly   disproportionate   which   would   have   required
to be interfered with by the Tribunal in exercise of its power under
Section 11A of the Act 1947.  At the same time, merely because the
employee   stood   superannuated   in   the   meanwhile,   will   not   absolve
7

him   from  the   misconduct   which   he   had   committed   in   discharge   of
his duties and looking into the nature of misconduct which he had
committed,   he   was   not   entitled   for   any   indulgence.     The   Bank
employee   always   holds   the   position   of   trust   where   honesty   and
integrity   are   the   sine   qua   non   but   it   would   never   be   advisable   to
deal with such matters leniently.
12. Consequently,   the   appeal   succeeds   and   is   allowed.     The
interference   made   by   the   Tribunal   and   the   High   Court   in   the
impugned judgment is hereby set aside.  No costs.
13. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.
       ……………………….J.
(AJAY RASTOGI)
       ……………………….J.
(ABHAY S. OKA)
NEW DELHI
FEBRUARY 11, 2022
8