SAROJA SHIVAKUMAR Vs. STATE BANK OF MYSORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is now well-settled law that a Public Authority particularly in its dealings with its employees is required to act fairly but the time has come to amplify that requirement by specifically adding on one more dimension namely the duty to act humanely. Normally, this requirement would have been considered to be implicit in the former but experience has shown that Institutions often act with a degree of rigidity and severity by insisting on technical and strict compliance with the rules which is construed as fair treatment insofar as the letter of the law is observed but this unfortunately falls short of the requirement insofar as when dealing with human beings, the special factors and circumstances, many of which are situational and which are inter-twined with the facts of the case, cannot either be dissected or separated in the process of decision making. This very important aspect has been directly thrown up in the present case which involves a few other significant dimensions of law which I shall presently deal with. The facts are rather simple and can be briefly summarised in that the present petitioner is the wife of late R. Shivakumar who was last employed as a Manager by the respondent-Bank namely the State Bank of Mysore. He was holding the post of the Manager of the Lokkanahalli Branch of the Bank in Mysore District. It is alleged that in the course of his duties, he had committed certain acts of misconduct which consisted of opening bogus accounts in the names of certain persons, showing loans having been sanctioned to them which in fact were appropriated by the Manager himself. The Bank's case is that through such a modus operandi the late R. Shivakumar is alleged to have misappropriated approximately Rs. 58,000/-. The Bank, by order dated 6-2-1992 placed him under suspension. The petitioner at the relevant time was in a rather precarious condition insofar as he was suffering from a serious heart complaint in addition to several other attendant circumstances. The suspension order was followed by a charge-sheet dated 19-8-1992 and an amendment dated 10-3-1993. The charge-sheet was further added to on 28-9-1993. An enquiry was commenced which made some headway insofar as the Enquiry Officer commenced the proceedings, a few hearings were held but before the enquiry could be completed, R. Shivakumar passed away on 26-11-1993. The Bank did not settle the dues of the petitioner for two reasons the first being that it contended that there was material to indicate that the deceased had committed acts of misconduct involving pecuniary loss of Rs. 58,000/- to the Bank and secondly that there were certain amounts outstanding from him under various heads such as house loan etc. R. Shivakumar had left behind his widow, a son and daughter and it is contended by the wife of the late R. Shivakumar who is the petitioner before me that the family suffered great financial distress as a result of his illness and his death and that in the course of the medical treatment, the family had incurred huge expenditure which meant taking of loans. An application was therefore made requesting that in view of the compassionate employment scheme which was at that time in operation that the petitioner's son should be employed by the Bank in his place. Similarly, the petitioner wife had agitated the question regarding the various dues payable to the petitioner by the Bank and in view of the fact that the Bank refused to either employ her son or to settle these dues, she has filed the present petition praying for appropriate reliefs.

(2.) The contentions taken up in the petition are of some consequence. Firstly, it is contended that irrespective of the charges that the late R. Shivakumar had to face, that the disciplinary proceeding had not concluded and that consequently, the same abates on his death which means that the respondents are wrong in seeking to fasten any liability on R. Shivakumar in respect of those charges which have not reached a stage of finality. The consequent submission is that if the disciplinary proceedings have not concluded with an adverse order against R. Shivakumar, that the period of suspension will have to be treated as on duty and that therefore, the petitioner would be entitled to claim along with the dues payable to him, the difference in salary between the subsistence allowance paid to him during the period of suspension and his normal salary which he would have been entitled to receive but for the suspension order. Simultaneously, it is contended that the whole function and purpose of formulating the compassionate employment scheme is that when the dependants of an employee are virtually orphaned or plunged into distress that at the earliest point of time the Institute must provide relief by way of employment to another member of the family in order to soften the blow. This Court has had occasion to observe while dealing with compassionate employment schemes which are applicable to organisations such as the present one that speedy relief is of utmost consequence in the administration of these schemes as otherwise it not only frustrates the whole purpose but renders the scheme counter productive. The petitioner has contended that the Bank sent her a reply to the effect that they cannot consider her son for employment and that this was obviously because her late husband had been suspended on certain charges. She contends that if the enquiry has abated, the Bank ought to have proceeded with a clean slate basis as though no such charges were in existence because these were never established. The last contention is that even if there are any amounts adjustable against the loans etc., that these could easily have been transferred to the son if he was given employment and that if such a procedure had been followed, the Bank would have still recovered its money without having to subject the family to the trauma of having almost the whole of the dues that were receivable by the petitioner adjusted in one whole instalment once against the outstanding loan. Obviously, the rationale behind these contentions is that had R. Shivakumar continued to serve the Bank, that the loans would have been repayable on a deferred basis and if this is the position, merely because of his unfortunate death, the misery should not be compounded by seeking a one time recovery and straightaway adjusting the greater part of the terminal dues against these outstanding thereby leaving the widow and the family with hardly anything in the balance.

(3.) The Bank has contended that the facts of this case are unusual insofar as according to the Bank the misconduct committed by R. Shivakumar is established by various documents which are on the record of the Bank and1 it is further contended that R. Shivakumar himself had given a letter to the Bank indicating that due to his extreme distress caused because of the total breakdown of his health that he was forced into the position of taking away some of the Bank's money and he had requested for some time within which to make good those amounts. The contention is that he had virtually pleaded guilty to the charges and that therefore, the non-completion of the enquiry is of no consequence because the record itself establishes what would have been the inevitable result in that enquiry. The next contention adopted is that in such a position, the Bank is fully justified in recovering the amount of Rs. 58,000/- which is alleged to have been misappropriated, from the amounts payable to the petitioner. It is further contended that once the Bank parts with the terminal benefits to the petitioner, that the Institution has no further hold and that therefore it is only just and fair that they should be allowed to adjust the various loan amounts against these dues and pay only the balance. As regards non-employment of the petitioner's son, the Bank has contended that in the first instance there were certain disciplinary proceedings pending against R. Shivakumar at the time of his death and that therefore, this is not a usual run of the mill case where an employee dies in harness, the implication of the defence being that R. Shivakumar would come within the category of a tainted employee and that therefore, his son would not qualify for compassionate employment. Also, what has been pointed out is that the Government of India has issued certain instructions in respect of this category of cases which the Bank is obliged to follow and that consequently, the Bank was required, in keeping with the instructions, to refer the matter to the Government of India for an appropriate decision and that it was precluded froin taking any decision on its own. Why this was not done and why the petitioner was informed straightaway that her request cannot be considered has not been explained.