Detailed Reasons Not Required In Disciplinary Authority's Order Imposing Punishment: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has observed that detailed reasons are not required to be recorded by the Disciplinary Authority in an order imposing punishment by accepting the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer.

Merely because a show cause notice is issued by indicating the proposed punishment it cannot be said that disciplinary authority has taken a decision, the bench comprising Justices Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and MR Shah observed.

In this case, a manager of Lakhimi Gaolia Bank was imposed with a punishment of 'compulsory retirement'.  The Disciplinary authority had accepted the report of the Enquiry Officer, that he has sanctioned and disbursed loans without following the due procedure contemplated under law and also there are allegations of misappropriation, disbursing loans irregularly in some instances to (a) units without any shop/business; (b) more than one loan to members of same family etc. The Gauhati High Court upheld the 'compulsory retirement' order.

The contention raised in the appeal before the Apex Court was that the disciplinary authority has not recorded any reasons in the order dated 29.08.2005 while imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement and similarly the appellate authority has dismissed the appeal without recording reasons. The court, taking note of the records, observed that applicable procedure was followed by the Disciplinary authority in this case. It said:

"Further, it is well settled that if the disciplinary authority accepts the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and passes an order, no detailed reasons are required to be recorded in the order imposing punishment. The punishment is imposed based on the findings recorded in the enquiry report, as such, no further 8 C.A.No.4394 of 2010 elaborate reasons are required to be given by the disciplinary authority"

The bench also rejected the submission that the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the gravity of charges. It noted that, in his response to the show cause notice issued by the disciplinary authority, he had virtually admitted the charges stating that such lapses occurred due to work pressure.  The court, while dismissing the appeal, observed:

The manager of a bank plays a vital role in managing the affairs of  the bank. A bank officer/employee deals with the public money. The nature of his work demands vigilance with the in­built requirement to act carefully. If an officer/employee of the bank is allowed to act beyond his authority, the discipline of the bank will disappear. When the procedural guidelines are issued for grant of loans, officers/employees are required to follow the same meticulously and any deviation will lead to erosion of public trust on the banks. If the manager of a bank indulges in such misconduct, which is evident from the charge memo dated 18.06.2004 and the findings of the enquiry officer, it indicates that such charges are grave and serious. Inspite of proved misconduct on such serious charges, disciplinary authority itself was liberal in imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the punishment imposed in the disciplinary proceedings on the appellant, is disproportionate to the gravity of charges. 

CASE: Boloram Bordoloi  vs. Lakhimi Gaolia Bank [C.A.No.4394 of 2010]

CORAM: Justices Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and MR Shah

COUNSEL: Adv Parthiv GoswamI, Adv Rajesh Kumar

CITATION: LL 2021 SC 70  

Click here to Read/Download Judgment

Read Judgment