TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2003 (3) TMI 724
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....are as follows: - Name of the Borrower Date Advance Amount advance Land holding Sri Ram Ratan Ram (Jt. A/C) 29-03-1985 Rs. 4750/- 1.37 acres Sri Indra Deo Singh Yadav 11-03-1985 Rs. 1200/- 1.64 acres b) Under the aforesaid minor irrigation scheme advances for pumpsets have been allowed without obtaining the completion report of boring from A.D.O. (M.I.). Few such cases are as follows: - Name of the Borrower Date of Advance Amount of Advance Sri Narain & others 06-06-1984 Rs. 8536.00 25-05-1984 Rs. 2150.00 Rabindra Singh Yadav 13-08-1984 Rs. 7800.00 09-08-1984 Rs. 4200.00 c) Under minor irrigation scheme advances for electric Tube Well/pump set have been allowed without verification of electricity. Few examples are as follows: - Name of the Borrower Date of Advance Amount of advance Ram Kanwar and ors. 7-02-1985 Rs. 7500.00 Sri Santi 28-03-1984 Rs. 7000.00 ARTICLE II That during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the Yusufpur branch of the Allahabad Bank as Manager the said Sri K.N. Gupta allowed advances to small borrowers under small loan....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y, so it was violative of Article 311 of the Constitution of India; (b) none of the charges leveled against him amounted to any misconduct; (c) the findings of the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority were perverse and (d) that the punishment of removal awarded was wholly disproportionate to the charges leveled against him. The High court, on consideration of the material placed before it and having regard to the submissions made on behalf of either side, held against the appellant on all the points. However, as regards the point relating to awarding of disproportionate punishment, following the judgment of this Court in State Bank of India & Ors. vs. Samerendra Kishore Endow & Anr. [(1994) 2 SCC 537], the High Court was of the view that imposition of appropriate punishment was within the discretion and judgment of the disciplinary authority; it was not open to the High Court or the administrative tribunal to interfere with the quantum of punishment exercising power of judicial review. Hence, in this appeal the appellant has called in question the validity and correctness of the impugned order. On 8.11.1996, this Court ordered issue of notice limited to the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....tirement benefits. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents made submissions in support of the impugned order. The learned counsel further urged that having regard to the nature of charges which were held proved against the appellant, the punishment imposed on him was quite justified. Under the circumstances, the impugned order may not be disturbed. We have carefully examined the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. The High Court did not go into the question as to whether the order of removal of the appellant from service was grossly disproportionate in view of the decision of this Court in State Bank of India & Ors. vs. Samerendra Kishore Endow & Anr. (supra). This Court in Union of India & Anr. vs. G.Ganayutham [(1997 7 SCC 463] considered the question whether judicial review powers in administrative law permit the High Courts or the administrative tribunals to apply the principle of "proportionality". In the said judgment, reference is made to leading cases in England and also to the rulings of this Court touching the question of "proportionality". In para 15, reference is made to the case of Ranjit Thakur vs. Union of India & Ors. [(198....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hat ground alone would have weighed with the authority in dismissing the public servant. The Court had no jurisdiction, if the findings prima facie made out a case of misconduct, to direct the Governor to reconsider the order of penalty. This view was reiterated in Union of India vs. Sardar Bahadur [(1972) 4 SCC 618}. It is true that in Bhagat Ram vs. State of H.P. [(1983) 2 SCC 442] a Bench of two Judges of this Court, while holding that the High Court did not function as a court of appeal, concluded that when the finding was utterly perverse, the High court could always interfere with the same. In that case, the finding was that the appellant was to supervise felling of the trees which were not hammer marked. The Government had recovered from the contractor the loss caused to if by illicit felling of trees. Under those circumstances, this Court held that the finding of guilt was perverse and unsupported by evidence. The ratio, therefore, is not an authority to conclude that in every case the Court/Tribunal is empowered to interfere with the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority. In Rangaswami vs. State of T.N. [(1989) supp. 1 SCC 686], a Bench of three Judges of this C....