UMESH KUMAR PAHWA versus THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS UTTARAKHAND GRAMIN BANK & ORS.

UMESH KUMAR PAHWA versus THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS UTTARAKHAND GRAMIN BANK & ORS.

The Supreme Court held that although the High Court correctly declined to reappreciate inquiry evidence under Article 226, the punishment of removal was disproportionate in the facts (no financial loss shown, appellant had 28 years' unblemished service and the loan was reduced which was in bank's interest); therefore removal was substituted with compulsory retirement and the promotion writ was remanded to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits.

Parties
Appellant / Employee / Branch Officer: Umesh Kumar Pahwa; Respondent / Bank / Disciplinary Authority: The Board of Directors Uttarakhand Gramin Bank & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
11 February 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (against High Court Judgment on Writ Petitions) / Appeal to Supreme Court Judgment on Merits
Outcome
Appeals partly allowed
Legal Topics
Article 226, Departmental Inquiry, Removal From Service, Compulsory Retirement, Promotion
Constitutional Law Service Law Administrative Law Article 226 Departmental Inquiry Removal From Service Compulsory Retirement Promotion

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Umesh Kumar Pahwa

Appellant / Employee / Branch Officer

The Board of Directors Uttarakhand Gramin Bank & Ors.

Respondent / Bank / Disciplinary Authority

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (against High Court Judgment on Writ Petitions) / Appeal to Supreme Court Judgment on Merits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the departmental findings and removal from service were liable to be interfered with under Article 226
  2. 2 Whether the punishment of removal was proportionate to the misconduct proved
  3. 3 Whether allegations of bias required re-opening of the inquiry or interference with findings

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that although the High Court correctly declined to reappreciate inquiry evidence under Article 226, the punishment of removal was disproportionate in the facts (no financial loss shown, appellant had 28 years' unblemished service and the loan was reduced which was in bank's interest); therefore removal was substituted with compulsory retirement and the promotion writ was remanded to the High Court for fresh consideration on merits.

Court Disposition

Appeals partly allowed

Orders

  • Impugned High Court judgment in Writ Petition (S/B) No.4 of 2013 modified: punishment of removal substituted with compulsory retirement.
  • Appellant entitled to all benefits available on conversion of punishment to compulsory retirement.