Syndicate Bank v. SP Mehra

1. Learned counsel for the appellant concedes that in respect of the five loan accounts whereunder the respondent stood guarantee the necessary loan amounts have been recovered. Learned counsel for the appellant further concedes that the policy circular requiring employees of the bank to take prior permission before standing as guarantors was published in the year

1979. Learned counsel for the appellant further concedes that of the five guarantees offered by the respondent, three were before the year 1979. Only two were post 1979. Learned counsel for the appellant concedes that in the guarantee documents the respondent disclosed that he was an employee of the appellant-bank.

2. The learned Single Judge has noted that the charge was not one of misappropriation or concealment of facts and at best it was a case of infraction of a policy circular and the infraction being technical; limited to only two guarantees offered by the respondent with respect to loans taken by third parties.

3. We agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge that the penalty ofdismissal from service was not warranted.

4. Two arguments are advanced in appeal. Firstly that even on the reasoning ofthe learned Single Judge, once infraction ofthe policy circular issued in the year 1979 was made out some penalty ought to have been levied. The second contention is that the respondent being a workman the dispute resolution forum had to be aFora under the Industrial Disputes Act, LPA Nos.532/2015 &533/2015 Page 2 of[4] 1947 because the said Fora had the power to substitute the penalty and therefore prejudice has been caused to the appellant by not declining to dismiss the writ petition on the ground that the respondent had an efficacious alternative remedy.

5. We deal with both arguments because they are intertwined. Both relate to the grievance ofthe appellant that some penalty oughtto have been inflicted upon the respondent.

6. Now,for a technical interaction the penalty ofdismissal from service is grossly disproportionate keeping in view the fact that when the penalty was levied the respondent had served the bank for 30 years without any blemish. It therefore hardly mattered whether the Labour Court substituted the penalty or exercising writjurisdiction the Court did so. Conscious ofthe fact that the learned Single Judge has not substituted the penalty, we clarify that at the moment we are discussing whether any prejudice was caused to the appellant by notrelegating the parties before the Labour Court.

7. It is true that the learned Single Judge has not substituted the penalty, which logically should have taken place because some infraction ofa policy circular has been found. But in our opinion it would not be a case to levy any penalty whatsoever for the reason the respondent would have superannuated during the pendency ofthe writ petition which was filed in the year 1999. He attained the age of superannuation on September 30,

2006. No pensionary dues have been paid to him. The learned Single Judge has directed that pensioneiy dues would be paid with interest @ 6% per annum. In the year 2015 it would not serve the ends of justice if the Disciplinary Authority is called upon to levy a lesser penalty or the Court would do so. Equity plays an important part under exercise ofextraordinary writjurisdiction power by the Courts. LPANos.532/2015 & 533/2015 Page3of[4]

8. We accordingly dismiss the two appeals but without any order as to costs. CM No.14411/2015 in LPANo.532/2015 CM No.14416/2015 in LPANo.533/2015 Dismissed as infructuous. n \ ^ PRADEEP NANBRAjOG,J. AUGUST 10,2015 mamta MUKTA GUPTA,J.