Held, since no financial loss was caused to bank, on the contrary decision to reduce loan amount was taken in bank’s interest, and fact that in appellant’s service span of 28 years, no allegations were made against him, punishment of removal for charges proved and misconduct established, is too harsh and disproportionate. Substitution of punishment of removal with compulsory retirement, when warranted.

[Umesh Kumar Pahwa v. Uttarakhand Gramin Bank, (2022) 4 SCC 385]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

error: Do not copy the content of this website.

Terms And condition

The rules of the Bar Council of India prohibit law firms from soliciting work or advertising in any manner. By clicking on ‘I AGREE’, the user acknowledges that:

  1. The user wishes to gain more information about Re Legal, its practice areas for his/her own information and use
  2. That the information provided in the website is only for personal use or reference of the visitor and is provided only on his/her specific request.
  3. That the material available for downloading on the website and other information provided on the website would not create any lawyer-client relationship.
  4. That we are not responsible for any consequence of any action taken by the user relying on material/information provided under this website.
  5. That in case the visitor has any legal issues; he or she should seek independent legal advice.

The information provided under this website is for informational purposes only and solely available at your request. It should not be interpreted as soliciting or advertising.