Page 1

NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5698 OF 2017

[@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (C) No.18228 OF 2016 ] BAIJNATH PRASAD                               Appellant(s)

                               VERSUS THE CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA AND ORS             Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T KURIAN, J.

1. Leave granted. 2. Disciplinary  proceedings  were  initiated  against the appellant on the ground that he knowingly made a false statement pertaining to his employment in the Bank.   Though  he  was  matriculate,  he  claimed  the appointment as a sub-staff, producing a certificate of  having  passed  8th standard.   Thereafter,  he appeared  for  matriculation  again  with  a  different date of birth, as alleged, and after having passed the matriculation, secured promotion to the post of Clerk.

3. While  continuing  as  Clerk,  the  respondent-Bank received information that the appellant had made a deliberate  false  statement  regarding  his  education for securing the employment in the Bank.  Thus, on

Page 2

initiating  disciplinary  action,  he  was  discharged from  service  with  superannuation  benefits.   The departmental  remedies  were  unsuccessful  to  the appellant.

4.  In the High Court, the learned Single Judge took a view that he should be reinstated by denying one increment  with  cumulative  effect,  based  on  a circular.  On appeal, the Division Bench found that the circular was not applicable in the case of the appellant and hence, the order passed by the learned Single Judge was set aside and the order of discharge passed by the Bank was restored.

5. Thus  aggrieved,  the  appellant  is  before  this Court in appeal, by way of special leave.

6. On  10.04.2017,  the  Court  passed  the  following order :-

“Learned  counsel  appearing  for respondent No. 1/Bank is directed to get instruction as to whether the misconduct alleged  against  the  petitioner  would come under gross misconduct and whether the gravest punishments of discharge was the only punishment permissible for the alleged  misconduct  and  why  a  lesser punishment  was  not  equitable  in  the circumstances.”  

Page 3

7.  Sh. Ashish Wad, learned counsel, inviting our reference to the bipartite settlement, submitted that as a matter of fact, the appellant was visited with only a lesser punishment since dismissal, removal and compulsory retirement were the other higher modes of punishment, but the Bank has taken a lenient view by imposing  the  punishment  of  discharge.   On  the contrary, Mr. Subhro Sanyal, learned counsel for the appellant,  submits  that  the  other  punishments  of reduction of scale of pay to two stages, stoppage of an increment without cumulative effect, withdrawal of special pay, warning or entry of adverse remarks or fine  were  also  prescribed  punishments  for  proved gross misconduct.

8. Having  extensively  heard  the  learned  counsel appearing on both the sides and having regard also to the fact that the appellant is only 46 years of age and that he belongs to a backward class, we are of the  view  that  this  is  an  eminently  fit  case  for invocation  of  Article  142  of  the  Constitution  of India for doing complete justice.

9. The appeal is, hence, disposed of as follows :- i) The  punishment  imposed  on  the  appellant  shall stand substituted as reduction to the lower rank of

Page 4

sub-staff from the date of his promotion to the post of Clerk.   ii) The appellant shall be treated and continued as sub-staff only, till his superannuation. iii)  He shall  be reinstated  in service  within two weeks. iv) He  shall  not  be  entitled  to  any  backwages. However,  the  period  between  the  discharge  and reinstatement  shall  be  treated  as  service  for  all other  purposes  in  the  category  of  sub-staff. However,  there shall  be no  recovery of  any salary drawn by the appellant as a Clerk.

10. Needless  also  to  make  it  clear  that  being  an order passed under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, this case shall not be treated as a precedent.

No costs.           .......................J.

             [ KURIAN JOSEPH ]  

.......................J.               [ R. BANUMATHI ]  

New Delhi; April 25, 2017.