Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the dismissal of a bank officer from the State Bank of Indore. The respondent, Govindrao, was an agent of the Ujjain Branch of the State Bank of Indore. On 18 March 1977, a chargesheet was served on him alleging that loans were granted from his branch in disregard of rules, became irrecoverable, and caused loss to the bank. He was permitted to inspect records but did not file a reply to the allegations. The enquiry officer found him guilty of negligence after waiting for his reply. A show cause notice was issued, and on 28 September 1977, Govindrao informed the disciplinary authority that the Development Officer, Shri Sharda, was primarily responsible for the irrecoverable loans, and he had acted only in a supervisory capacity. On 3 October 1977, the disciplinary authority dismissed him from service. He accepted provident fund with objections on 5 June 1978. His appeal to the appellate authority was dismissed on 18 July 1978, and a special appeal was dismissed on 12 May 1982. Nearly five years later, on 6 April 1987, he filed a writ petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court challenging the dismissal. The High Court, by judgment dated 21 June 1990, quashed the dismissal and directed payment of all dues. The bank appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that the writ petition should not have been entertained after nearly ten years from the dismissal. It held that the High Court should have dismissed the petition in limine, and that an order of dismissal passed on 3 October 1977 cannot be set aside by a writ court after a long lapse by re-evaluating evidence. The Court also observed that the higher the position of an officer, the greater the responsibility, and the power conferred on the subordinate cannot absolve the superior officer. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court order, and directed that the respondent may retain Rs.15,000 paid under interim order and that the bank pay outstanding dues as per rules, with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Writ Petition Delay and Laches - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - The writ petitioner challenged dismissal order after nearly ten years; the High Court quashed the dismissal, but the Supreme Court held that the High Court should not have entertained the writ petition and it should have been dismissed in limine due to inordinate delay. Held that delay and laches barred the writ remedy. B) Service Law - Judicial Review - Reappraisal of Evidence - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 226 - The High Court examined charges and held that charges pointed to lack of supervision or negligence; Supreme Court held that an order of dismissal passed on 03.10.1977 cannot be set aside after nearly ten years by re-evaluating evidence and re-appraising chargesheet. Held that High Court exceeded its supervisory jurisdiction. C) Service Law - Supervisory Responsibility - Liability for Negligence - Not mentioned - The officer claimed Development Officer was primarily responsible, and he acted only in supervisory capacity; Supreme Court observed that higher the position of an officer, greater the responsibility; power conferred on subordinate cannot absolve superior. Held that lack of supervision resulting in huge irrecoverable loans justified dismissal.
Issue of Consideration
Whether High Court erred in entertaining and allowing a writ petition challenging a disciplinary dismissal after a delay of nearly ten years and in re-evaluating the charges; whether the dismissal order was invalid due to lack of direct responsibility.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; High Court order dated 21.06.1990 set aside; respondent entitled to retain Rs.15,000 paid under interim order; bank to pay all outstanding dues payable as per rules; no costs.
Law Points
- Writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised after inordinate delay and laches
- High Court should not reappraise evidence in disciplinary proceedings
- supervisory officer cannot absolve responsibility by blaming subordinate
- delay of nearly ten years bars challenge to dismissal
