PANCHMAHAL VADODARA GRAMIN BANK & ORS.
v.
D.M. PARMAR
(Civil Appeal No. 2093 of 2007)
SEPTEMBER 21, 2011
[A.K. Patnaik and H.L. Gokhale, JJ.]
[2011] 12 SCR 690
The following order of the Court was delivered
O R D E R
1. These are two appeals filed by way of special leave under Article 136 of the
Constitution of India against the common order dated 5.8.2005 in Letters Patent Appeals No.
1736/2004 and 1869/2004 passed by the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court.
2. The facts briefly are that D.M. Parmar was appointed in Panchmahal Vadodara Gramin
Bank, ‘the Bank’ for short, as an officer by order dated 16.4.1988. He joined the bank on
25.4.1988 and was confirmed in service on 9.5.1991. He worked as a Manager at Chundadi
branch of the bank during 25.3.1996 to 21.6.1997 and during this period he had granted
advances, renewed various loan accounts and extended more finance to the borrowers under
Crop Loan Scheme. A show cause notice dated 15/20.5.1999 was issued to him to show
cause why disciplinary action should not be initiated against him for various acts of omission
and commission committed during his posting as a Manager of Chundadi branch of the bank
during the period 25.3.1996 to 21.6.1997. He replied saying that he was not fully experienced
in handling a big branch and in discharging duties as a Branch Manager and the acts of
omission and commission were on account of his inexperience. The reply furnished by him JUDGMENT
was not accepted by the bank and a charge-sheet dated 20.26.4.1999 was issued to him
derogatory, detrimental, prejudicial and injurious to the interest of the Bank. .....
Proved.
(2) He showed gross negligence and indifference in discharge of his duties. .....
Proved.
(3) He did not discharge his duties with utmost integrity and honesty but in fact did such
acts of lack of probity on his part. .... Proved.
(4) He did not maintain discipline in all transactions and in discharging his duties s a
Manager. In fct, he misused and abused his position as a Manager of the branch.
...... Proved
(5) He did not perform his duties with devotion and diligence and violated and flouted the
rules of the Bank. ..... Proved.
(6) He committed acts of breach of trust. .....Proved.
(7) By his acts of misdeeds, he tarnished the image of the bank. ..... Proved.
(8) He did acts of unbecoming of a Bank Officer.
....Proved.”
These findings are all based on adequate material referred to in the inquiry report and
these materials are mainly bank records. As has been held by this Court in the recent
decision in General Manager(P), Punjab & Sind Bank & Ors. Vs. Daya Singh, (2010) 11
SCC 233, in which one of us (H.L. Gokhale, J.) was a party, as long as there are
materials and evidence in support of the findings, the High Court cannot interfere with
such findings in exercise of powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India. The learned single Judge of the High Court and the Division Bench of the High
Court have, therefore, rightly not interfered with the findings. Once the findings of the
Enquiry Officer, which have been quoted above, are not interfered with, we fail to see how
the delinquent officer can avoid the punishment of dismissal from service. The findings
include not only serious acts of negligence but also acts of dishonesty and lack of probity.
The Court cannot probably take a view that punishment of dismissal was shockingly or
strikingly disproportionate to the gravity of charges proved against D.M. Parmar.
11.In the result, the impugned judgment of the Division Bench and the learned single Judge are set aside and the writ petition filed by D.M. Parmar is dismissed. Accordingly, C.A. No.2093/2007 is allowed and C.A. NO.2094/2007 is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. JUDGMENT