http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: THE SATED BANK OF INDORE

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: GOVINDRAO

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       17/01/1997

BENCH: J.S. VERMA, SUHAS C. SEN, S.P. KURDUKAR

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T      SEN,J.      Govindaro agent  of Ujjain  Branch of the State Bank of Indore. On  18th March,  1977 a  chargesheet was served upon him in which it was alleged that loans were granted from his Branch  of   the  Bank  in  total  disregard  of  the  rules regulating  grant   of   such   loans   which   has   become irrecoverable and  thereby had  caused  loss  to  the  Bank. Govindrao by  him and  was  permitted  to  inspect  records, vouchers, act.  but  he  did  not  file  any  reply  to  the allegations made  against  him.  The  Equity  Officer  found Govindrao quilty  of negligence in the matter of granting of the loans  and made  his report  after wating  for the reply from Govindrao  for a considerable period of time. Thereupon the discipliner  Authority issued  a show  cause  notice  to Govindrao calling  upon him  to show cause why he should not be dismissed.  On 28.9.77  Govindrao informed the Displinary Authority that  the Development  Officer, Shri  Sharda,  was primarily responsible  for  granting  of  the  irrecoverable loans. Govindrao had acted only in supervisory capacity.      On 3rd  October, 1977  the Disciplinary Authority after taking into  consideration the objection filed by Govindrao, passed an  order dismissing  him from  service. On 2nd June, 1978 the  Bank paid  Govindrao full Provident Fund which was forwarded along with a letter of the same date. On 5th June, 1978 Govindrao accepted the provident Fund amount subject to certain objections  and claim  of interest.  On  18th  July, 1978, appeal  preferred by  Govindrao against  the order  of dismissal, was  dismissed by the Appellate Authority. Nearly four years  thereafter, another appeal (described as Special Appeal) was filed by Govindrao which was again dismissed.      Nothing happened  thereafter for  nearly five years. On 6th April,  1987 Govindrao  decided to  move a writ petition challenging the validity of the order of dismissal passed on 3.10.1977. The  writ petition  came to  be hear  by Division Bench of  the Madhya  Pradesh High  Court. By a judgment and order dated  21.6.1990 V.D.  Gyani  and  A.G.  Qureshi,  JJ. quashed the order of dismissal. V.D. Gyani, J., speaking for the Bench,  held that  the writ petitioner must be deemed to have retired on his due date of retirement i.e. 9th October,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

1977 The  Bank was  directed to  pay all the dues, Provident Fund, pension,  gratuity to the writ petitioner within three months from the date of the judgment.      The Bank has come up in appeal against this judgment.      It is  difficult to  see how  this  writ  petition  was entertained at  all by the High Court. the date of dismissal was 3rd  October, 1977.  The appeal  against that  order was dismissed on  18th July,  1978. The  writ petitioner did not choose to  challenge that  appellate order  by way of a writ petition. What  was described  as Special  Appeal was  again dismissed on  12th May,  1982. there  was no  reason for the High Court,  after a long lapse of nearly ten years from the date of  the order  of  dismissal,  to  entertain  the  writ petition and  quash the  order of  dismissal. We  are of the view that the High Court should not entertained that at all. It should have been dismissed in limine.      Gyani, J. examined the charges framed against Govindrao and held  that "the  charges put  together merely  points to lack of supervision or negligence".      This lack  of supervision  or  negligence  resulted  in grant of  hugh irrecoverable  loans by  the Bank. The higher the  position   of   an   officer   the   greater   in   his responsibility. the  power conferred on Sharda in the matter of granting of loans cannot absolve Govindrao in any way. In any event,  an order of dismissal passed on 3.10.1977 cannot be entertained  and set  aside by  a writ court after a long lapse of  nearly 10  years by  reevaluating the evidence and re-appraisal of the chargesheet.      This appeal  is allowed.  The order  passed by the High Court dated 21.6.1990 is set aside.      When  the   Special  Leave   Petition  was   moved,  on 26.11.1990  an   interim  order  was  passed  directing  the appellant  Bank   to  pay   the  respondent   on  amount  of Rs.15,000/- subject  to adjustment within four weeks.; It is directed that  the respondent will be entitled to retain the said sum  of Rs.15,000/-  The Bank  will  pay  off  all  the outstanding dues  to the  respondent which may be payable to him in  accordance with  the rules, if any, as expeditiously as possible.      There will be no order as to costs.