Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Kishor Gopichand Ukey, was a Manager with the Central Bank of India. He was served with a charge-sheet containing eight charges in a departmental proceeding. Upon conclusion of the inquiry, all eight charges were held proved. Based on findings for Charge Nos. 1, 3, and 5, a major penalty of dismissal was imposed, while minor penalties were imposed for the remaining charges. Charge No. 1 related to bills purchased by discounting cheques; Charge No. 2 to issuance of cheques without sufficient balance; Charge No. 3 to credit card purchases not cleared; and Charge No. 5 to availing Leave Fare Concession without traveling. The petitioner challenged the dismissal, arguing that no loss was caused to the bank as all amounts were recovered, and that the penalty was disproportionate given his unblemished service record. The court, relying on the judgment in Narayan Salve v. Managing Director, MSRTC, held that even if charges are proved, the employer must consider the nature and gravity of the charges and mitigating circumstances before imposing punishment. Since the bank had recovered all amounts and the petitioner had a clean record, the dismissal was set aside and the matter remitted to the disciplinary authority for reconsideration of penalty.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Disciplinary Proceedings - Proportionality of Punishment - Central Bank of India Service Rules - The court considered whether dismissal was disproportionate where charges of financial irregularities were proved but no loss was caused to the bank and the employee had an unblemished record - Held that the employer must consider nature and gravity of charges and mitigating circumstances before imposing major penalty (Paras 2-7).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the penalty of dismissal imposed on the petitioner is disproportionate to the charges proved, especially when no loss was caused to the bank and the petitioner had an unblemished service record.
Final Decision
The petition is allowed. The impugned order of dismissal is quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted back to the disciplinary authority to reconsider the quantum of punishment, taking into account the nature and gravity of the charges and the fact that no loss was caused to the bank. The disciplinary authority shall pass a fresh order within three months.
Law Points
- Proportionality of punishment
- Mitigating circumstances
- Unblemished service record
- No loss caused to employer
- Disciplinary proceedings
