STATE BANK OF MYSORE AND ORS. ETC.versusM.C. KRISHNAPPA

                          [2011) 7 S.C.R. 188


A           STATE BANK OF MYSORE AND ORS. ETC.
                                    V.
                          M.C. KRISHNAPPA
                (Civil Appeal Nos.5055-5056 of 2011)
                              JULY 6, 2011
8
               [AFTAB ALAM AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.]

          Service law: Dismissal from service - Employee in
    officer grade found guilty of misappropriation of funds - Order
C   of removal from service - Reviewing authority modified the
    punishment and reduced it to demotion to cadre of clerk with
    a further bar against promotion for a period of seven years -
    Accepting same, employee rejoined but after expiry of seven
    years filed writ petition challenging the punishment awarded
D   to him - High Court rejected the contention that the employee
    could not be put down in the clerks' cadre and his demotion
    could only be confined to a lower rark in the officer grade itself,
    however, found that the ·bar again::it the promotion for the
    period of seven years was harsh and set it aside - On appeal,
E   held: It is well settled that punishment is primarily a function
    of the Management and the courts rarely interfere with the
    quantum of punishment - In the instant case, the proven
    charge against the employee was of financial iffegularities
    and of making fraudulent withdrawals deriving pecuniary gain
F   for himself - In a bank an offence of this kind is one of the
    most serious offences and punishment of removal from
    service could not be said to be unreasonable or unduly harsh
    - Reviewing Authority modified the order of punishment and
    gave him a lighter punishment which was accepted by
    employee without ado - In those facts, there was no scope
G   for interference with the punishment on a purely subjective
    view taken by the High Court - Order of the High Court set
    aside and writ petition by employee dismissed - Judicial
    review.

H                                  188
  STATE BANK OF MYSORE AND ORS. ETC. v. M.C. 189
                 KRISHNAPPA
       The respondent was employee of the appellant-            A
   Bank. He was originally inducted in the service of the
   appellant-Bank in the clerical cadre but at the material
   time, by virtue of promotions, he was in the Junior
   Management Grade Scale-I. He was served with a charge
   sheet on the ground that he conducted misappropriation       B
   of funds of the appellant-Bank.
                          I
                                     The charges were duly
   established in a departmental enquiry and the
   disciplinary authority passed the order of his removal
   from service. The appellate authority upheld the order of
   the disciplinary authority. The reviewing authority,         c
   however, modified the punishment and reduced it from
   removal from service to demotion from the cadre of
   Junior Management Grade Scale-I to the cadre of clerk
·· with a further bar against promotion for a period of seven
 para.                                                          D
      The respondent rejoined the service accepting the
 punishment given to him in terms of the review order. But
 after the expiry of the period of seven years, he filed a
 writ petition before the High Court challenging the
 punishment awarded to him. The Single Judge of the             E
 High Court rejected the contention that the respondent
 could not be put down in the clerks' cadre and his
 demotion could only be confined to a lower rank in the
 officer grade itself. However, the Single Judge found that
 the bar against the promotion for the period of seven          F
 years was harsh and set it aside subject to the
 qualification that the order would not affect the promotion
 of other employees and their seniority. The appellant-
 Bank and the respondent filed intra court appeals. The
 Division Bench of the High Court dismissed both. The           G
 instant appeal was filed challenging the order of the High
 Court.

     Disposing of the appeals, the Court

      HELD: It is well settled that punishment is primarily     H
    190       SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2011] 7 S.C.R.

A a function of the Management and the courts rarely
  interfere with the quantum of punishment. In the instant
  case the proven charge against the respondent was of
  financial irregularities and of making fraudulent
  withdrawals deriving pecuniary gain for himself. In a bank
B an offence of this kind is one of the most serious offences
  and the disciplinary authority had passed an order of
  removal against the respondent. In the facts of the case
  even that punishment could not be said to be
  unreasonable or unduly harsh. The Reviewing Authority
c modified the order of punishment and gave him a lighter
  punishment instead. At that time the respondent
  accepted it without ado .. In those facts there was no
  scope for interference with the punishment on a purely
  subjective view taken by the High Court. Therefore, the
0 judgments   and orders of the High Court are set aside and
  the writ petition filed by the respondent is dismissed.
  The period of seven years during which the bar against
  the respondent's promotion was 'lDerating is long over.
  In case, after the expiry of the period of the bar the
  respondent is found fit for promotion In terms of the
E relevant rules he would undoubtedly be entitled to get it
  in accordance with law. [Paras 8, 11] [193-G-H; 194-A-D]
          Administrator, UT of Dadra & Nagar Haveli v. Gulabhia
    M. Lad (2010) 5 sec 775 - relied on.
F
                         Case Law Reference:
          (201 O) 5 sec 775.     relied on           Para 8
      CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.
G 5055-5056 of 2011. etc.

        From the Judgment & Order dated 19.7.2007 of the High
    Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in Writ Appeal No. 915 of
    2006 (S.RES) and Writ Appeal No. 989 of 2006 (S-RES).
H
STATE BANK OF MYSORE AND ORS. ETC. v. M.C. 191
               KRISHNAPPA
                              WITH                                     A

Civil Appeal No. -5057 of 2011.

     R. Sundaravardhan, Ramesh N. Keshwani, Ram Lal Roy,
S. Nanda Kumar, Satish Kumar, Anjali Chauhan, V.N.
Raghupthay for the appearing parties.                                  B

     The Judmgent of the Court was delivered by

     AFTAB ALAM, J;
SLP (CIVIL) NOS.20719-20720 OF 2008                                    c
     1. Leave granted.

     2. The respondent - M.C. Krishnappa is an employee of
the appellant - State Bank of Mysore. He was originally inducted
in the service of the bank in the clerical cadre but at the material   D
time, by virtue of promotions, he was in the Junior Management
Grade Scale-I. He was served with a charge sheet on
September 25, 1990. The charges, in brief, were as under:-

     "(a) Prepared and passed a withdrawal slip for Rs.10,000/         E
     - on 29.05.1989 in the Savings Bank account No.4738 of
     Smt. Lalithamma despite being aware that there was no
     sufficient balance in the said account and derived
     pecuniary gain for himself.
                                                                       F
     "(b) Caused fraudulent withdrawal of Rs.6,000/- on
     02.03.1989 in the Savings Bank account No.941 of Shri
     N. Narayanappa, without posting the voucher in the said
     account and to conceal his acts, he had checked the
     ledgers on the day the voucher was passed."
                                                                       G
     3. The charges were duly established in a departmental
enquiry following which the disciplinary authority passed the
order of his removal from service on February 8, 1993. The
respondent made an appeal against the order passed by the
disciplinary authority but it was rejected by the appellate            H
    192       SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2011) 7 S.C.R.


A authority by order dated July 28, 1993. The respondent took
  the matter before the Reviewing Authority where he was able
  to partial relief. The Reviewing Authority, by order dated April
  2, 1994, modified the respondent's punishment and reduced
  it from removal from service to demotion from the cadre of
B Junior Management Grade Scale-I to the cadre of clerk with a
  further bar against promotion for a period of seven years.

       4. The respondent rejoined the service, accepting the
  punishment given to him in terms of the review order. But after
  the expiry of the period of seven years, he moved the Karnataka
C High Court, challenging the punishment awarded to him, in Writ
  Petition No.40666 of 2001 (S-RES) which was partly allowed
  by judgment and order dated April 21, 2006 passed by a
  learned single judge of the High Court.

D      5. It was contended on behalf of the respondent that
  regulation 67(e) of the State Bank of Mysore Officer's Service
  Regulations, 1979 permitted reduction of rank of an Officer to
  a lower rank in the Officer Grade itself and the respondent,
  therefore, could not have· been demoted to the cadre of clerks.
E A grievance was also made in regard to the bar against
  promotion for the period of seven years. The learned single
  judge noted that the only grievance of the Writ Petitioner (the
  respondent in this appeal) was in relation to the levy of penalty.
  He rejected the contention that the Writ Petitioner could not be
F put down in the clerk's cadre and his demotion could only be
  confined to a lower rank in the Officer Grade itself. The learned
  judge, however, felt that the bar against promotion for the period
  of seven years was quite harsh and in that connection observed
  as follows:-

G         "There is some force in the contention of the learned
          counsel for the petitioner that total punishment levied on
          the petitioner is too harsh and disproportionate to the
          charge levelled against the petitioner.

H         xxxxxxxxx
STATE BANK OF MYSORE AND ORS. ETC. v. M.C. 193
        KRISHNAPPA [AFTAB ALAM, J.]
     Having regard to the nature of charges, I am of the view          A
     that the total penalty levied on the petitioner is little more
     harsh and shocks my conscience. The petitioner having
     been demoted from the Officer cadre to the cadre of Clerk,
     must be given an opportunity to improve himself and if he
     improves, he should be promoted to further higher cadre           B
     if he is so entitled. The total bar on any promotion for a
     period of 7 long years is too harsh and requires to be
     modified. If the petitioner improves his.performance, his
     integrity and his devotion to work in the cadre of Clerk, he
     should not be denied further promotion from that cadre."          c
     6. Having taken the view as appearing from the above, the
single judge set aside the bar of promotion against the
respondent for the period of seven years subject to the
qualification, however, that the order will not affect the promotion
of other employees and their seniority.                                D

     7. Against the judgment and order passed by the single
judge both, the appellant (the bank) and the respondent,
preferred intra-court appeals. A Division Bench of the High
Court, however, dismissed both, Writ Appeal No.915 of                  E
2006(S-RES) (filed by the respondent - Writ Petitioner) and
Writ Appeal No.989 of 2006(S-RES) (filed by the appellants)
 by judgment and order dated July 19, 2007. The Division
 Bench did not find any illegality in the order passed by the single
judge and rather agreed with the view taken by him that the            F
 punishment barring promotion for seven years was too harsh
 and that it required to be set aside.

     8. We are unable to agree with the view taken by the High
Court. It is well settled that punishment is primarily a function
of the Management and the courts rarely interfere with the             G
quantum of punishment. (See: Administrator, UT of Dadra &
Nagar Haveli v. Gulabhia M. Lad (2010) 5 SCC 775;
paragraphs 9 and 14).

     9. In this case the proven charge against the respondent          H
    194        SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2011] 7 S.C.R.


A was of financial irregularities and of making fraudulent
  withdrawals deriving pecuniary gain for himself. In a bank an
  offence oH6is. kind is one of the most serious offences and the
  disciplinary al,ltho.rity had passed an order of removal against
  the respondent. tri tb.1;t facts of the case even that punishment
B could not be said to be u'f1reasonable or unduly harsh. The
  Reviewing Authority modified the order of punishment and gave
  him a lighter punishment instead. At that time t~Et. respondent
  accepted it without ado. In those facts we fail to see -any scop~. - .
  for interference with the punishment on a purely subjective view
c taken by the High Court.

       10. We are, therefore, constrained to interfere in the
  matter. The judgments and orders of the High Court are set
  aside and the Writ Petition filed by the respondent is dismissed.
  The appeals arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos. 20719-20720 of
D 2008 are, accordingly, allowed.

       11. It is made clear that the period of seven years during
  which the bar against the respondent's promotion was operating
  is long over. In case, after the expiry of the period of the bar
E the respondent is found fit for promotion in terms of the relevant
  rules he would undoubtedly be entitled to get it in accordance
  with law.                                                        -

    SLP (CIVIL) N0.15378 OF 2009

F          12. Delay condoned.

           13. Leave granted.

      14. In view of the order passed in civil appeals arising out
G of SLP(C) Nos.20719-20720 of 2008, this appeal stands
  dismissed.

    D.G.                                     Appeals disposed of.