[Misconduct in service] Employee not absolved merely because he superannuated: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Friday observed that merely because an employee stood superannuated, will not by itself absolve him from the misconduct committed at the time of discharge of his duties when he was in service [United Bank of India v. Bachan Prasad Lal]..A Division Bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S Oka was hearing an appeal filed by United Bank of India against a 2010 order of the Patna High Court which had upheld the decision of the Industrial Tribunal to reduce the punishment handed down to the respondent-employee. The High Court had refused to interfere with the decision of the tribunal on the ground that the employee had already superannuated."Merely because the employee stood superannuated in the meanwhile, will not absolve him from the misconduct which he had committed in discharge of his duties and looking into the nature of the misconduct which he had committed, he was not entitled for any indulgence," the Court observed..The respondent-employee while in service, had committed serious irregularities in discharge of his duties.After being suspended for the same in August 1995, he was served with the charge-sheet along with a statement of allegation on March 2, 1996. In consequence of the disciplinary enquiry, the respondent was dismissed from service on December 8, 2000.The appellate authority confirmed the same. Subsequently, a reference was made to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication by the appropriate government. The tribunal observed that punishment awarded to the respondent employee of dismissal was not commensurate with the charge levelled against him and therefore, the substituted the punishment of dismissal with an order of reinstatement after lowering down of two stages in his basic salary that he was getting at the time of his dismissal.Aggrieved by the same, the bank preferred a writ petition before the Patna High Court. However, the High Court had upheld the decision of the Tribunal and refused to interfere with the order of the tribunal for the reason that the respondent employee by that time had retired on attaining the age of superannuation in 2007.The appellant-bank then moved the Supreme Court by way of the present appeal..At the outset, the Court noted that looking into seriousness of the nature of allegations levelled against the respondent employee, the punishment of dismissal inflicted upon him in no manner could be said to be shockingly disproportionate which would have been required to be interfered with by the Industrial Tribunal.While allowing the appeal and restoring the punishment against the respondent, the Court remarked that:"The Bank employee always holds the position of trust where honesty and integrity are the sine qua non but it would never be advisable to deal with such matters leniently."Consequently, the punishment of dismissal imposed upon the respondent was restored..Advocates Rajesh Kumar Gautam, Anant Gautam, Nipun Sharma, Ravi Solanki and Shashank Shekar appeared on behalf of the appellant.Advocate-on-Record Rohit Kumar Singh appeared on behalf of the respondent..[Read Judgment]