“Disciplinary Action Time-Barred”: Gauhati High Court Upholds Quashing of Penalty Against Retired Bank Officer
Kiran Raj
The Gauhati High Court has dismissed an intra-Court appeal filed by a regional bank against a judgment that quashed disciplinary proceedings against a retired bank officer. The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Vijay Bishnoi and Justice N. Unni Krishnan Nair found no grounds to interfere with the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge, who had allowed the officer’s writ petition, citing procedural lapses and violation of the bank’s own accountability policies. The court recorded, “We are of the considered view that the judgment & order dated 23.11.2023, passed by the learned single Judge in WP(c)1525/2023, would not warrant any interference.”
The Division Bench further stated, “We having not found any perversity with regard to the conclusions reached by the learned single Judge… we are not persuaded by the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant Bank, to take a different view in the matter.”
The intra-Court appeal was filed by Assam Gramin Vikash Bank and its officials challenging the judgment and order dated 23 November 2023 of the learned Single Judge, which had set aside the disciplinary penalty imposed upon the respondent, a retired Chief Manager of the bank. The disciplinary action stemmed from a departmental proceeding initiated via charge-sheet dated 30 August 2022, alleging negligence in sanctioning loans during the respondent’s tenure at various managerial positions from 2007 to 2014.
The charge-sheet contained six articles of charges, primarily alleging that the respondent failed to exercise due diligence in sanctioning or recommending loans and credit enhancements to various borrowers. The Inquiry Officer’s report, dated 21 January 2023, partially established three charges while absolving the respondent of the remaining allegations.
Based on the Inquiry Officer’s findings, the disciplinary authority, by order dated 1 February 2023, imposed the penalty of “Reduction of Basic Pay by 1(one) stage with cumulative effect”. Additionally, the respondent was “debarred from appearing any promotional interview/test of the Bank for a period of 1(one) year”. An appeal filed by the respondent to the Board of Directors of the bank was subsequently rejected on 27 February 2023.
The respondent approached the High Court through WP(c)1525/2023, wherein the learned Single Judge, by judgment dated 23 November 2023, quashed the penalty order. The Bank, aggrieved by this decision, preferred the present intra-Court appeal.
In its submissions before the Division Bench, the appellant Bank argued that the learned Single Judge exceeded jurisdiction by re-appreciating evidence in the disciplinary inquiry, without there being any specific plea of perversity. The Bank further submitted that the learned Single Judge incorrectly applied Clause 10.2(b) of the Assam Gramin Vikash Bank Staff Accountability Policy-2021, which prescribes a time bar for initiating proceedings unless allegations involve fraud or collusion.
The Bank also contended that the applicable policy was the Assam Gramin Vikash Bank Staff Accountability Policy-2022, which came into effect from 1 April 2022 and contains a similar provision under Clause 14.2(b), providing exceptions in cases involving fraud or mala fide actions.
In response, the respondent argued that the proceedings were initiated after the permissible timeline and that there was no allegation of fraud or collusion in the charge-sheet or Inquiry Officer’s report. The respondent further submitted that mere negligence without personal gain or intent to commit fraud could not constitute misconduct under Regulation 39 of the Assam Gramin Vikash Bank Officers and Employees Service Regulations, 2010.
The Division Bench recorded, “We do not find that the learned Single Judge, in any manner, had re-appreciated the evidence brought on record in the inquiry.” It further stated, “The learned Single Judge had only examined the allegations levelled against the respondent, herein, in the light of the provisions of the Assam Gramin Vikash Bank Officers and Employees Service Regulations, 2010(as amended), to ascertain as to whether the allegations… had brought to the forefront, a commission of misconduct.”
The court noted that the Single Judge had observed that “the allegations so levelled against the respondent, herein, only indicates certain lapses existing on his part to verify certain documents and/or records.” Furthermore, it recorded that the respondent was part of a recommending committee and did not individually process the loans, and that no individual role had been ascribed to him in the alleged lapses.
The Division Bench also reviewed Clause 14.2(b) of the 2022 Policy and found it to be “pari materia” with Clause 10.2(b) of the 2021 Policy, both limiting the initiation of proceedings unless there is an allegation of fraud or collusion. The Bench stated, “The conclusions reached by the learned Single Judge in the matter are clearly supported by the provisions governing the issue.”
The court further observed, “There being no allegation of fraud and/or collusion leveled against the respondent in the matter; it was apparent on the face of the records of the disciplinary proceeding that the same was clearly time-barred.”
Referring to Supreme Court precedent, the Bench noted, “In an intra-court writ appeal, the Appellate Court must restrain itself and the interference into the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge is permissible only if the judgment… is perverse or suffers from an error apparent in law.” The Division Bench concluded that no such infirmity was present in this case.
The Division Bench, therefore, dismissed the appeal and recorded, “We are of the considered view that the present intra-Court appeal is bereft of any merit and the same, accordingly, stands dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellant Bank: Ms. P. Banerjee, assisted by Mr. Adarsh Dhanuka
For the Respondent: Mr. Diganta Das (Senior Counsel), assisted by Mr. Indrajit Bhuyan
Case Title: Assam Gramin Vikash Bank and 3 Ors. v. Ramkrishna Sarma
Neutral Citation: 2025:GAU-AS:2748-DB
Case Number: WA/29/2024
Bench: Chief Justice Vijay Bishnoi, Justice N. Unni Krishnan Nair
[Read/Download order]
