WRIT PETITION None on 11 July 2001

Order

Date of Reserve

Date of Pronouncement

1. This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitutionof India has been filed by the petitioner against penalty of removalfrom service awarded to the petitioner vide order dated25.10.2000 as well as order dated 11.07.2001 passed by theAppellate Authority for dismissing the appeal filed by thepetitioner against the penalty order. It is contended that thepetitioner was working as Clerk-cum-Cashier in Bansi KhurdBranch of Alwar, Bharatpur at Aanchlik Gramin Bank. One charge-sheet levelling as many as four charges were served upon thepetitioner, which were relating to reaching the bank office after thescheduled time on 12.02.2000 and when he reached to the office,he was under intoxication of liquor. It was also mentioned that hewas although in-charge of the bank and the keys of treasury werein his possession, yet he negligently left the same unattended against the interest of the bank. It was also mentioned in thecharge-sheet that he was habitual absentee and also madeincorrect entries in the account of one Shri Bhagwan Singh.

2. The petitioner filed reply to the charge-sheet, whiledenying the charges, he requested for dropping the matter at thisstage only, however, Inquiry Officer was appointed to enquire intothe charges and found the petitioner guilty of charges. Copy ofinquiry report was sent to the petitioner along with notice dated05.10.2000 proposing penalty of removal from service. Thepetitioner was heard pursuant to such notice and ultimatelypenalty order dated 25.10.2000 was issued for removing thepetitioner from service.

3. It has also been submitted that although the petitionerfiled appeal against the penalty order, yet the same was notentertained on merits and was dismissed simply treating the sameto be time barred, vide order dated 11.07.2001.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitsthat bare perusal of the charge-sheet would reveal that in quitemalicious manner one single incident has been sub-divided in fourdifferent charges only in order to create sensation and to makethe charge-sheet grave and serious against the petitioner. It issubmitted that the Inquiry Officer conducted the inquiry in aprejudiced manner. The documents referred in the charge-sheetwere not provided to the petitioner either with the charge-sheet orduring inquiry proceedings yet, by relying upon such documents,grave penalty of removal from service has been imposed upon thepetitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that thepetitioner was entitled for submitting representation against faultyinquiry conducted by the Inquiry Officer, yet the inquiry report wasserved upon the petitioner only with the proposed punishment andnot earlier, which has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner.Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has a family tomaintain and he was the only breadearner in the family. After theorder of removal from service, his wife, four children and oldmother have been striving hard even for daily bread and butter. Assuch, the penalty of removal imposed upon the petitioner wasquite excessive and disproportionate to the guilt of the petitioner.Learned counsel also submits that the Appellate Authority insteadof appreciating the appeal on merits, took a hyper technicalapproach and dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner merelyon the ground of delay, which has also caused serious prejudice tothe petitioner. Hence, he prayed for allowing the writ petition andquashing the penalty order as well as appellate order.

6. Reply to the writ petition was filed on behalf of therespondents, in which the impugned orders were defended and itwas submitted that the conduct of the petitioner, where apart frombeing Clerk-cum-Cashier in the bank, he was also holding thecharge of Branch Manager, was totally unbecoming of a bankemployee. It has been submitted that on account of grave/grossmisconduct committed by the petitioner on 12.02.2000, he wasplaced under suspension on 14.02.2000 and a charge-sheetcontaining specific charges, was served upon the petitioner inorder to providing opportunity to defend himself. All the materialdocuments were also supplied to the petitioner.

7. Bare perusal of the charge-sheet would reveal theseriousness of the misconduct committed by the petitioner.Instead of denying the charges, while submitting reply and otherrepresentations, the petitioner has virtually admitted the chargesand his guilt. Even then, in order to provide fair opportunity, theinquiry proceedings were conducted in which the petitioner wasalso given opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses producedby the management. The petitioner did not produce any evidencefrom the defence side for defending his cause. The Inquiry Officer,after analyzing the charges, reply to the charge-sheet as well asevidence/material on record has given his inquiry report, whereinthe charges against the petitioner have been found proved.

8. It has been submitted that copy of inquiry report wasserved upon the petitioner along with proposed penalty, however,the petitioner did not avail the opportunity to represent againstthe inquiry report nor did he file any reply to the notice dated05.10.2000, consequently after appreciating the entire material aswell as defence of the petitioner, moreso when earlier also thepetitioner has committed misconducts, in the manner that he hasremained wilfully absent for 741 days, the Disciplinary Authorityhas rightly passed penalty of removal from service against thepetitioner.

9. Heard and considered.

10. I have examined the charge-sheet issued to thepetitioner and found that specific and definite charges wereframed against the petitioner in the charge-sheet and it cannot besaid that only one incident has been fragmented in four pieces inorder to frame four different charges. Charge No.1 was relating to arriving late in the bank whereas, Charge No.2 was in relation tomaking wrong entries in the bank account of one Shri BhagwanSingh. Charge No.3 was in respect of leaving the keys of thetreasury of the bank unattended and Charge No.4 was in respectof remaining willful absent from 12.02.2000 to 14.02.2000 as wellas in respect of his earlier conduct, where the petitioner hasremained absent for as many as 741 days. It shows that he washabitual of remaining absent from bank. Thus, there was nomanifest error or illegality in framing the charge-sheet by theDisciplinary Authority. 11.The petitioner has also raised a ground that fairopportunity was not given to him during inquiry proceedings,whereas the documents on record would show that the petitionerhas virtually admitted the charges levelled against him and simplymade a request to grant him another opportunity to improve hisconduct. However, the petitioner failed to produce any evidencewhatsoever to support his defence. The petitioner has alsochallenged the impugned penalty order on the ground that theinquiry report was served upon him along with proposed penalty,which showed that the Disciplinary Authority was adamant topenalise the petitioner even before representation of petitioner. Ifind that as per procedure, copy of inquiry report was sent to thepetitioner vide letter/notice dated 05.10.2000, however, norepresentation whatsoever was submitted by the petitioner inorder to establish any flaw, defect, material irregularity orillegality in the inquiry proceedings, where the issue of non-supplyof the documents, if any, could have been raised by him. Thus, theopportunity granted to the petitioner was never availed by him.

Merely, proposing the charge on the basis of findings of inquiryreport would not lead to an inference that the DisciplinaryAuthority was acting with pre-occupied mind. In fact, videletter/notice dated 05.10.2000, the petitioner was grantedopportunity to represent against the findings of Inquiry Officer ofholding him guilty as well as against the proposed penalty, hence,it is clear that the Disciplinary Authority has acted in transparentand fair manner.

12. Lastly, the petitioner has assailed the penalty byreferring it to be excessive and disproportionate to the guilt.Although, it is a settled proposition of law that this Court whileexercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia can intervene only where there is manifest violation ofprinciples of natural justice or non-compliance of statutory Ruleswith regard to holding departmental inquiry or even in the casewhere the penalty imposed upon the delinquent was so excessiveand disproportionate to the guilt, which would shock theconscience of the Court.

13. In the instant case, the petitioner has failed to point outany of the aforesaid defect or shortcoming either in the inquiryproceedings or in the quantum of punishment. While imposingpenalty of removal from service, the Disciplinary Authority hasrightly taken into consideration that earlier also the conduct of thepetitioner was not suitable and on so many different occasions hehad remained absent as well as on leave without pay. Thus intotality of the facts and circumstances, there is no scope ofinterference even in the quantum of punishment.

14. In the case of General Manager (P), Punjab & SindBank and Others Vs. Daya Singh reported in (2010) 11 SCC233, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the guidelines withregard to scope of judicial review in the matter of departmental inquiry and has observed as under:- "As held in T.N.C.S. Corpn. Ltd. v. K. Meerabai [(2006) 2 SCC 255 : 2006 SCC(L&S) 265] the scope of judicial review for the High Court in departmentaldisciplinary matters is limited. The observations of this Court in Bank of India v.Degala Suryanarayana [(1999) 5 SCC 762 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 1036] are quiteinstructive: (SCC pp. 768-69, para 11)

“11. Strict rules of evidence are not applicable to departmentalenquiry proceedings. The only requirement of law is that theallegation against the delinquent ofcer must be established by suchevidence acting upon which a reasonable person acting reasonablyand with objectivity may arrive at a fnding upholding the gravamenof the charge against the delinquent ofcer. Mere conjecture orsurmises cannot sustain the fnding of guilt even in departmentalenquiry proceedings. The court exercising the jurisdiction of judicialreview would not interfere with the fndings of fact arrived at in thedepartmental enquiry proceedings excepting in a case of mala fdesor perversity i.e where there is no evidence to support a fnding orwhere a fnding is such that no man acting reasonably and withobjectivity could have arrived at that fnding. The court cannotembark upon reappreciating the evidence or weighing the same likean appellate authority. So long as there is some evidence to supportthe conclusion arrived at by the departmental authority, the samehas to be sustained. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel [AIR 1964 SC 364 :(1964) 4 SCR 718] the Constitution Bench has held: (AIR p. 370, para23)

‘23. … the High Court can and must enquire whether there is anyevidence at all in support of the impugned conclusion. In otherwords, if the whole of the evidence led in the enquiry is accepted astrue, does the conclusion follow that the charge in question is provedagainst the respondent? This approach will avoid weighing theevidence. It will take the evidence as it stands and only examinewhether on that evidence legally the impugned conclusion follows ornot.’ ”

15. In the case of Bank of India Vs. Apurba Kumar Saha (C.A. No.7412/1993) decided on 14.12.1993, theHon'ble Supreme Court has refused to grant any benefit to the bank employee who failed to avail the opportunity granted to thedelinquent during the inquiry.

16. In the light of above discussion and after examining therecord, I do not find any error in the penalty imposed upon thepetitioner.

17. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner, ishereby, dismissed.

(ANAND SHARMA),J

DIVYA /2