State Bank Of India & Ors vs S.N. Goyal

4. The appeal and Revision (Review) filed by the Respondent were dismissed on 29.11.1995 and 27.11.1996. The respondent thereafter filed Civil Suit No.158 of 1998 on the file of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jind, for a declaration that the order of removal dated 30.6.1995 as also the orders of the Appellate Authority and Reviewing Authority were arbitrary and illegal. He also prayed that the said orders be set aside with a direction to take him back into service with all consequential benefits. The suit was resisted by the appellant-bank. After trial, the suit was decreed on 19.4.2003. The Trial Court found that there was no violation of principles of natural justice in conducting the enquiry and the order holding the respondent guilty of misconduct was proper. The trial court however found that the Disciplinary Authority, by his earlier note dated 18.1.1995, had recommended imposition of the penalty of reduction of pay of respondent by four stages in his time scale and the Appointing Authority had agreed with the said recommendation on 18.1.1995. According to the trail court, the said order was a final order of punishment by the Appointing Authority; and the Appointing Authority had thereafter sought the advice of the Bank's Chief Vigilance Officer, and acting on such advice, had changed his earlier decision and imposed a higher punishment by way of removal from service, by order dated 3.5.1995 (communicated on 30.6.1995). The trial court was of the view that the second order imposing penalty was passed by the Appointing Authority "on extraneous reasons after taking advice of the Chief Vigilance Officer", and that rendered the order of removal illegal, null and void. The trial court therefore set aside the order of removal dated 30.6.1995 as also the orders dated 29.11.95 and 27.11.1996 of the Appellate Authority and reviewing authority affirming the order of removal. It directed the appellant Bank to reinstate the respondent with continuity of service and all consequential benefits except back-wages. The Trial Court reserved liberty to the appellant to pass a fresh order imposing appropriate penalty on the respondent, other than the penalty of dismissal or removal from service.

5. Feeling aggrieved, both parties filed appeals. Before the First Appellate Court, the respondent did not challenge the finding of the trail court that the domestic enquiry was fair and proper and that his guilt was established. He limited his challenge only to the quantum of punishment (that is, reservation of liberty to the employer to pass a fresh order imposing appropriate penalty) and the denial of back wages. The appellant, in its appeal, contended that the Trial Court, having found that the enquiry was fair and proper and the finding of guilt was justified, ought not to have set aside the order imposing penalty. The two appeals were heard and disposed of by the Additional District Judge, Jind, by a common judgment dated 20.7.2002. The First Appellate Court upheld the decree of the Trial Court, but in addition held that the respondent was entitled to full back wages with interest thereon at 9% per annum. Consequently, the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal by the appellant and allowed in part the appeal of the respondent.

6. Feeling aggrieved the bank filed the second appeal, which was dismissed by the judgment under appeal. The judgment is short. After referring to the prayer in the suit and the judgments rendered by the courts below, it contains the following reasoning :

Re : Questions (iv) and (v) Whether the Appointing Authority was influenced by extraneous material.

29. In view of the above we allow these appeals and set aside the judgments and decrees of the courts below and dismiss the respondent's suit.