REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.5055-5056 OF 2011  [Arising out of SLP (Civil) Nos.20719-20720 Of 2008]

State Bank of Mysore & Others etc. … Appellants

Versus

M.C. Krishnappa … Respondent WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO.5057 OF 2011  [Arising out of SLP (Civil) No.15378 Of 2009]

M.C. Krishnappa … Appellant

Versus

State Bank of Mysore represented by its Managing Director & Ors. … Respondents

J UD G M E N T

Aftab Alam, J.

SLP (CIVIL) NOS.20719-20720 OF 2008

1. Leave granted.

2. The respondent - M.C. Krishnappa is an employee of the appellant -  

State Bank of Mysore.  He was originally inducted in the service of the bank  

in the clerical cadre but at the material time, by virtue of promotions, he was

in the Junior Management Grade Scale-I.  He was served with a charge sheet  

on September 25, 1990.  The charges, in brief, were as under:-

“a) Prepared and passed a withdrawal slip for Rs.10,000/- on  29.05.1989  in  the  Savings  Bank  account  No.4738  of  Smt.  Lalithamma despite  being aware that  there  was no sufficient  balance  in  the  said  account  and  derived  pecuniary  gain  for  himself.

“b) Caused fraudulent withdrawal of Rs.6,000/- on 02.03.1989  in the Savings Bank account No.941 of Shri N. Narayanappa,  without posting the voucher in the said account and to conceal  his acts, he had checked the ledgers on the day the voucher was  passed.”

3. The  charges  were  duly  established  in  a  departmental  enquiry  

following which the disciplinary authority passed the order of his removal  

from service on February 8, 1993. The respondent made an appeal against  

the  order  passed  by  the  disciplinary  authority  but  it  was  rejected  by  the  

appellate authority by order dated July 28, 1993.  The respondent took the  

matter before the Reviewing Authority where he was able to partial relief.  

The  Reviewing  Authority,  by  order  dated  April  2,  1994,  modified  the  

respondent’s  punishment  and  reduced  it  from  removal  from  service  to  

demotion from the cadre of Junior Management Grade Scale-I to the cadre  

of clerk with a further bar against promotion for a period of seven years.

4. The respondent rejoined the service, accepting the punishment given  

to him in terms of the review order. But after the expiry of the period of  

2

seven  years,  he  moved  the  Karnataka  High  Court,  challenging  the  

punishment awarded to him, in Writ  Petition No.40666 of 2001 (S-RES)  

which  was  partly  allowed  by  judgment  and  order  dated  April  21,  2006  

passed by a learned single judge of the High Court.

5. It was contended on behalf of the respondent that regulation 67(e) of  

the  State  Bank of  Mysore  Officer’s  Service  Regulations,  1979 permitted  

reduction of rank of an Officer to a lower rank in the Officer Grade itself and  

the  respondent,  therefore,  could  not  have  been  demoted  to  the  cadre  of  

clerks.  A grievance was also made in regard to the bar against promotion for  

the  period  of  seven  years.  The  learned  single  judge  noted  that  the  only  

grievance  of  the  Writ  Petitioner  (the  respondent  in  this  appeal)  was  in  

relation  to  the  levy  of  penalty.  He  rejected  the  contention  that  the  Writ  

Petitioner could not be put down in the clerk’s cadre and his demotion could  

only be confined to a lower rank in the Officer Grade itself.  The learned  

judge, however, felt that the bar against promotion for the period of seven  

years was quite harsh and in that connection observed as follows:-

“There is some force in the contention of the learned counsel  for the petitioner that total punishment levied on the petitioner  is too harsh and disproportionate to the charge levelled against  the petitioner.

xxx xxx xxx

3

Having regard to the nature of charges, I am of the view that the  total  penalty levied on the petitioner is  little  more harsh and  shocks my conscience.   The petitioner  having been demoted  from the Officer cadre to the cadre of Clerk, must be given an  opportunity to improve himself and if he improves, he should  be promoted to further higher cadre if he is so entitled. The total  bar on any promotion for a period of 7 long years is too harsh  and  requires  to  be  modified.   If  the  petitioner  improves  his  performance, his integrity and his devotion to work in the cadre  of Clerk, he should not be denied further promotion from that  cadre.”

6. Having taken the view as appearing from the above, the single judge  

set aside the bar of promotion against the respondent for the period of seven  

years subject to the qualification, however, that the order will not affect the  

promotion of other employees and their seniority.  

7. Against the judgment and order passed by the single judge both, the  

appellant (the bank) and the respondent,  preferred intra-court appeals.   A  

Division Bench of the High Court, however, dismissed both, Writ Appeal  

No.915 of 2006(S-RES) (filed by the respondent – Writ Petitioner) and Writ  

Appeal No.989 of 2006(S-RES) (filed by the appellants) by judgment and  

order dated July 19, 2007. The Division Bench did not find any illegality in  

the order passed by the single judge and rather agreed with the view taken  

by him that the punishment barring promotion for seven years was too harsh  

and that it required to be set aside.  

4

8. We are unable to agree with the view taken by the High Court. It is  

well settled that punishment is primarily a function of the Management and  

the  courts  rarely  interfere  with  the  quantum  of  punishment.  (See:  

Administrator, UT of Dadra & Nagar Haveli  v. Gulabhia M. Lad (2010) 5  

SCC 775; paragraphs 9 and 14).   

9. In this case the proven charge against the respondent was of financial  

irregularities and of making fraudulent withdrawals deriving pecuniary gain  

for himself.  In a bank an offence of this kind is one of the most serious  

offences  and  the  disciplinary  authority  had  passed  an  order  of  removal  

against the respondent. In the facts of the case even that punishment could  

not be said to be unreasonable or unduly harsh. The Reviewing Authority  

modified  the  order  of  punishment  and  gave  him  a  lighter  punishment  

instead. At that time the respondent accepted it without ado. In those facts  

we fail to see any scope for interference with the punishment on a purely  

subjective view taken by the High Court.  

10. We  are,  therefore,  constrained  to  interfere  in  the  matter.  The  

judgments and orders of the High Court are set aside and the Writ Petition  

filed by the respondent is dismissed.  The appeals arising out of SLP (Civil)  

Nos. 20719-20720 of 2008 are, accordingly, allowed.   

5

11. It is made clear that the period of seven years during which the bar  

against the respondent’s promotion was operating is long over. In case, after  

the expiry of the period of the bar the respondent is found fit for promotion  

in terms of the relevant rules he would undoubtedly be entitled to get it in  

accordance with law.  

SLP (CIVIL) NO.15378 OF 2009

12. Delay condoned.

13. Leave granted.

14. In view of the order  passed in civil  appeals  arising out  of  SLP(C)  

Nos.20719-20720 of 2008, this appeal stands dismissed.  

………………………………J. (AFTAB ALAM)

………………………………J. (R.M. LODHA)

New Delhi; July 6, 2011.  

6