Date of the Judgment: April 30, 2024
Citation: 2024 INSC 538
Judges: J.K. Maheshwari, J., Sanjay Karol, J.
Can a bank deny compassionate appointment to the dependent of a deceased employee if disciplinary proceedings were contemplated but not finalized before the employee’s death? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case involving the Bank of India. The court clarified the circumstances under which compassionate appointment can be denied when disciplinary actions were pending or contemplated against a deceased employee. This judgment provides clarity on the interpretation of compassionate appointment schemes in the banking sector. The bench comprised of Justices J.K. Maheshwari and Sanjay Karol, who delivered the judgment.
Case Background
The case revolves around a writ petition filed by Pankaj Srivastava, the respondent, seeking compassionate appointment as a clerk in the Bank of India following the death of his father during his employment. The respondent also sought to quash an order dated June 20, 2002, issued by the bank that denied such appointment. The bank had cited that disciplinary proceedings were contemplated against the deceased employee at the time of his death.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 17.03.1999 | Bank of India issued Branch Circular No. 92/64 outlining the scheme for compassionate appointments. |
| 28.07.2000 | Death of the respondent’s father, an employee of Bank of India. |
| 19.02.2002 | Revised guidelines issued by the Government of India delegating authority to banks for compassionate appointments in cases involving major penalties. |
| 20.04.2002 | Board Meeting of the Bank of India where it was decided that the Board would decide on case to case basis for compassionate appointment. |
| 20.06.2002 | Bank of India issued an order stating that compassionate appointments would not be considered in cases where major penalties were awarded or contemplated due to fraud, forgery, misappropriation, vigilance issues, or negligence. |
| 30.04.2024 | Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal of the Bank of India and upheld the decision of the High Court to consider the case of the respondent for compassionate appointment. |
Course of Proceedings
The Single Bench of the High Court allowed the writ petition, directing the bank to consider the respondent’s claim for compassionate appointment. The court noted that no charge sheet was served on the deceased employee before his death, and thus, disciplinary proceedings were not initiated or under contemplation. The bank appealed this decision to the Division Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench upheld the Single Bench’s decision, stating that merely because a charge sheet was under preparation, it could not be said that a major penalty was contemplated. The bank then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The case hinges on the interpretation of Clause 10(iv) of the Bank’s compassionate appointment scheme dated March 17, 1999, and the bank’s letter dated June 20, 2002, issued in reference to revised government guidelines. Clause 10(iv) states:
“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 primafacie 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, 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).”
The letter dated June 20, 2002, issued by the Bank of India, directed that compassionate appointments would not be considered in cases where a major penalty was awarded or contemplated due to fraud, forgery, misappropriation, vigilance issues, or negligence.
Arguments
The Bank of India argued that the deceased employee was under contemplation for disciplinary proceedings that could have resulted in a major penalty, thus disqualifying his son for compassionate appointment. The bank relied on the letter dated June 20, 2002, which stated that cases involving contemplation of major penalty would not be considered for compassionate appointment.
The respondent argued that since no charge sheet was issued to his father before his death, no disciplinary proceedings were actually initiated or under contemplation. He contended that the bank’s policy should not be interpreted to deny compassionate appointment based on mere contemplation of a charge sheet.
| Submissions | Bank of India’s Arguments | Respondent’s Arguments |
|---|---|---|
| Main Submission 1 | Disciplinary proceedings were contemplated against the deceased employee, which could have resulted in a major penalty. | No charge sheet was issued to the deceased employee before his death, so no disciplinary proceedings were initiated. |
| Main Submission 2 | The bank’s policy, as per the letter dated June 20, 2002, prohibits compassionate appointment in cases where major penalty was contemplated. | The bank’s policy should not deny compassionate appointment based on mere contemplation of a charge sheet. |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not frame specific issues but addressed the core question of whether the bank was justified in denying compassionate appointment based on the contemplation of disciplinary proceedings against the deceased employee.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
| Issue | Court’s Decision |
|---|---|
| Whether the bank was justified in denying compassionate appointment based on the contemplation of disciplinary proceedings against the deceased employee? | The Court held that the bank’s decision was not justified. The Court reasoned that since no charge sheet was issued and the employee was not suspended, the mere contemplation of disciplinary proceedings did not warrant denial of compassionate appointment. The Court emphasized that the bank’s policy did not explicitly bar cases where disciplinary proceedings were merely contemplated but not initiated. |
Authorities
The Court considered the following authorities:
- State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. Vs. Shashi Kumar (2019) 3 SCC 653 – Supreme Court of India
| Authority | Court | How it was Considered |
|---|---|---|
| State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. Vs. Shashi Kumar (2019) 3 SCC 653 | Supreme Court of India | The High Court denied to accede the plea raised by the Bank relying on this judgment 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. |
Judgment
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| The Bank of India argued that the deceased employee was under contemplation for disciplinary proceedings that could have resulted in a major penalty. | The Court rejected this argument, stating that the mere contemplation of a charge sheet does not equate to the initiation of disciplinary proceedings or the award of a major penalty. The Court emphasized that the employee was not placed under suspension and no charge sheet was issued before his death. |
| The bank relied on the letter dated June 20, 2002, which stated that cases involving contemplation of major penalty would not be considered for compassionate appointment. | The Court clarified that the letter did not explicitly debar cases where disciplinary proceedings were merely contemplated but not initiated. The Court interpreted the letter to mean that only cases where a major penalty was actually awarded or where disciplinary proceedings were pending at the time of death would be excluded. |
The Court also analyzed how the authorities were viewed:
- State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. Vs. Shashi Kumar (2019) 3 SCC 653*: The High Court rejected the plea of the bank relying on this judgment, observing that there was no delay in applying for compassionate appointment.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the interpretation of the bank’s policy and the principle of compassionate appointment. The Court emphasized that compassionate appointment is intended to provide immediate financial relief to the family of a deceased employee and should not be denied based on mere speculation or contemplation of disciplinary action. The court noted that the bank’s policy did not explicitly bar cases where disciplinary proceedings were merely contemplated but not initiated.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Interpretation of Bank Policy | 40% |
| Principle of Compassionate Appointment | 35% |
| Lack of Formal Disciplinary Action | 25% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
The court’s reasoning can be illustrated as follows:
The Court considered the bank’s argument that disciplinary proceedings were contemplated but rejected it because no formal steps like issuing a charge sheet or placing the employee under suspension were taken. The court emphasized that the mere contemplation of disciplinary action was not sufficient grounds to deny compassionate appointment. The court also rejected the alternative interpretation that the bank’s letter of June 20, 2002, barred all cases where disciplinary proceedings were contemplated, stating that the letter was silent on cases where proceedings were merely contemplated.
The Court concluded that the High Court’s decision to direct the bank to consider the respondent’s case was correct. The court stated:
“In our view, the decision of the bank in its Board Meeting dated 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.”
“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.”
The Court also noted:
“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.”
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, emphasizing that compassionate appointment is a welfare measure intended to provide immediate financial relief to the family of a deceased employee.
Key Takeaways
- Compassionate appointment cannot be denied based on the mere contemplation of disciplinary proceedings against a deceased employee.
- Formal steps like issuing a charge sheet or placing the employee under suspension are necessary for disciplinary proceedings to be considered initiated.
- Bank policies on compassionate appointment should be interpreted strictly and in favor of the dependents of deceased employees.
- The judgment underscores the importance of a welfare approach in considering compassionate appointment cases.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed the Bank of India to implement the High Court’s order within four months from the date of the Supreme Court’s order.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the mere contemplation of disciplinary proceedings against a deceased employee, without any formal steps such as issuing a charge sheet or suspension, is not sufficient grounds to deny compassionate appointment to the employee’s dependents. This judgment clarifies the interpretation of compassionate appointment schemes and emphasizes a welfare-oriented approach. This is not a change in the previous position of law but a clarification.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal of the Bank of India, affirming the High Court’s decision to consider the respondent’s case for compassionate appointment. The judgment clarifies that compassionate appointment cannot be denied based on the mere contemplation of disciplinary proceedings and underscores the importance of a welfare approach in such cases.