Bank Of India vs Pankaj Srivastava

REPORTABLE 2024 INSC 538 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 6837 OF 2023

BANK OF INDIA & ORS APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

PANKAJ SRIVASTAVA RESPONDENT(S)

ORDER

1. Being aggrieved by the judgment of Single Bench,

allowing the writ petition of the respondent and directing

the bank to consider his claim for appointment on

compassionate ground; confirmed in appeal by the

Division Bench, this appeal has been preferred.

2. The facts in shorn are, the respondent filed a writ petition

seeking directions to consider his case being eligible and

grant compassionate appointment on the post of Clerk

with immediate effect on account of death of his father

during course of employment. Prayer was also made to Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by quash the order dated 20.06.2002 issued by the bank. Jayant Kumar Arora Date: 2024.07.19 17:36:36 IST Reason:

3. In the short counter­affidavit filed by the bank, the

scheme prevalent for grant of compassionate appointment 2

vide Branch Circular No. 92/64 dated 17.03.1999 was

referred, in particular, Clause 10(iv) thereof. Further

reference was made regarding revised guidelines vide

letter No. 18/80/97­IR dated 19.02.2002 delegating the

authority to the bank for appointment of dependents of

deceased employee on compassionate ground relating to

cases involving major penalty and not required to be

referred to Government of India for clearance. Apropos

the letter dated 20.06.2002 issued by Bank of India in

Board Meeting, indicates that the Executive Director of

the Bank is directed not to consider those cases which

involve award/consideration/contemplation of major

penalty to employees on account of

fraud/forgery/misappropriation or due to any vigilance

angle/negligence. The bank had also filed a

supplementary affidavit before the writ Court which was

also placed on record.

4. Learned Single Bench proceeded on the premise that as

per the contents of the supplementary affidavit, no charge

sheet was served upon prior to the death of the employee,

and opined that the disciplinary proceedings were neither 3

under contemplation nor initiated, however, the defence

taken was not found plausible in terms of the policy.

5. On filing intra court appeal by bank, the High Court

referred the scheme dated 17.03.1999 and analyzed the

purport of Clause 10(iv) and the letter of the Bank of

India in Board Meeting dated 20.06.2002. In reference

thereto, the Court observed that the deceased was neither

punished with major penalty nor such penalty was in

contemplation against him prior to his death. It is said

that father of the respondent died on 28.07.2000 and till

his death he was not placed under suspension either due

to contemplation or initiation of the departmental

proceedings. As per averments in the counter­affidavit,

the charge sheet was not issued, except to say that it was

under preparation. However, the Division Bench in the

impugned judgment has opined as under: ­

“In our considered opinion, merely because the charge­sheet was said to be under preparation before the death of the father of the respondent – petitioner, it cannot be said that any major penalty was in contemplation. Thus, the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants does not appeal to this Court which is hereby rejected.” 4

The Bench also denied to accede the plea raised

relying on the judgment of State of Himachal Pradesh

and Anr. Vs. Shashi Kumar (2019) 3 SCC 653 and

observed that in the present case, there is no delay either

in applying or taking recourse before the Court for

appropriate directions to appoint the writ petitioner on

compassionate ground and thus, accepted the reasonings

as given by learned Single Judge.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on

perusal of the scheme dated 17.03.1999, in particular,

Clause 10(iv), which specifies the exceptions to

recruitment of the dependents of the employees who died

in harness, is relevant, and extracted for ready reference

as under: ­

10(iv). In case where the deceased employee had been awarded minor penalty or disciplinary proceedings against the employee was pending or contemplated at the time of death of the employee, which would prima­ facie have resulted in award of minor penalty, appointment on compassionate grounds of the dependents will be considered with the approval of the bank’s board. In case where the deceased employee had been awarded major penalty or disciplinary proceedings against the employee was pending or contemplated at time of death of the employee, which would prima­facie have resulted in award of major penalty, 5

appointment on compassionate grounds of the dependents will be considered with the approval of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs (Banking Division).

7. The afore­quoted clause specifies two exceptions, first, in

the cases where minor penalty had been awarded or

disciplinary proceedings against the deceased employee

was pending or contemplated at the time of death of

employee which would prima facie result in award of

minor penalty, there would not be any impediment to

consider the case of dependents for compassionate

appointment with the approval of Bank’s board. While in

the second exception it is clarified that where the

deceased employee had been awarded major penalty or

the disciplinary proceedings against the employee was

pending or contemplated at the time of death of employee

which would prima facie result in award of major penalty,

the consideration of appointment on compassionate

ground of the dependents of such employee may be made

with the approval of the Government of India, Ministry of

Finance, Department of Economic Affairs (Banking

Division).

8. The letter of the Bank of India in Board Meeting dated 6

20.06.2002 has been relied upon which was issued in

reference to the revised Government guidelines vide letter

F. No. 18/80/97­IR dated 19.02.2002. The relevant

portion of the letter dated 20.06.2002 is reproduced as

thus: ­

“Scheme for appointment of dependents of deceased employees on compassionate ground cases involving major penalty proceeding referred to Government of India for clearance as per earlier Government guidelines vide its letter F. No. 18/80/97­IR dated 03.11.1998 Revised Government guidelines vide letter F. No. 18/80/97­IR dated 19.2.2002 delegating authority to Bank in the above cases.

Apropos the directive given at the Board Meeting held on 20.04.2002 that the Board would decide on case to case basis upon resubmission of the above referred 12 individual cases to it, memorandum No. P/A/SSG/2002­03/212 dated 27.05.2002, together with annexures, embodying the factual details of the said 12 cases, submitted by Personal Department, was considered.

The Board DIRECTED that employment on compassionate ground need not be considered in cases where major penalty was awarded considered/contemplated to employees on account of fraud/forgery/misappropriation, on account of any vigilance angle/negligence and authorized the Executive Director to consider only those cases not involving the above, for employment of dependent of deceased employees on compassionate ground.

Stamp Bank of India Board of Meeting 20.06.2002”

9. On perusal of Clause 10(iv) of the Scheme and the 7

amended directions in bank’s Board Meeting dated

20.06.2002, it is luculent that even in cases where the

disciplinary proceedings against the employee were

pending or were under contemplation prior to his death

which would prima facie result in award of major penalty,

the case of the dependents of the deceased employee on

compassionate ground has not been completely refused

from consideration and it was subject to approval of the

Government. In compliance of government circular dated

19.02.2002, the bank in its Board of Meeting dated

20.06.2002 authorized the Executive Director of the Bank

and said that the cases for appointment on

compassionate ground shall not be considered where the

major penalty was awarded/contemplated to employee on

account of fraud/forgery/misappropriation and on

account of any vigilance angle/negligence. The above

letter does not debar the cases where disciplinary

proceedings were pending or were in contemplation

against the employee at the time of death which would

prima facie result in award of major penalty. In our view,

the decision of the bank in its Board Meeting dated 8

20.06.2002 is logical whereby the cases wherein the

penalty was either awarded or contemplated to the

deceased employee was not required to be considered.

The letter is silent with respect to contemplation of the

disciplinary proceedings against the deceased employee

which would prima facie result in award of major penalty.

In the facts of the case in hand, the deceased employee

was not placed under suspension on account of

contemplation of the disciplinary proceedings and the

charge sheet was also not issued. It is merely said that

the charge sheet was under preparation, however, in

absence of any relevant material disclosed, it might not

be presumed to be a case of prima facie award of major

penalty on account of contemplation of disciplinary

proceedings. Therefore, in our considered opinion,

reasoning as given in the judgment by the Division Bench

is completely in consonance with the spirit of the Circular

and it rightly affirmed the decision of the Single Bench to

consider the case of the respondent for grant of

compassionate appointment.

10. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any merit 9

in the contention to interfere with the order passed by the

Single Bench and the Division Bench of the High Court.

Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed, being bereft of

any merit. However, we direct that the order passed by

the High Court be now implemented within a period of

four months from the date of the order.

..........………............J. [ J. K. MAHESHWARI ]

..........………...........J. [ SANJAY KAROL ] New Delhi;

April 30, 2024.