High Court · 2012

During the course of day’s work on 01.02.2005, at around 3 PM you went to Mrs. I ndrani Nandi, CTO, at your branch for updating of a pass book dating back more t han 11 months and when told by Mrs. Nandi that the pass book cannot be printed d ue to some technical problems, you got angry and misbehaved with her using abusi ve language like (cid:28)Abhadra (cid:29) and (cid:28)Asabhya (cid:29) (Abhadra means impolite or uncouth and Asabhya means uncivilized) in front of Sri P. Dasgupta, Sr. Manager, Shri D. Cho udhury, Dy. Manager, Sri B.P. Dutta, Spl. Asstt. and Sri B.H. Mazumdar, C/C/C/ i nside the Bank premises in an indecent manner, (complaint from Mrs. Nandi & the Secretary of Women;s Cell, APBEA, Cachar District unit received at ours. Copy en closed). Not resting with this, you threatened Mrs. Nandi, saying that had she b een a boy you would have slapped her. This conduct of yours constitute misconduct under clause no. 5(c) in terms of Bi partite Settlement dated 10.04.2002. Charge No.2. On 16.03.2005 you left the office at around 5 PM without closing the cash vault , by leaving the keys of the strong room in the Bank Premises in spite of you be ing the Head Cashier and joint custodian of cash keys. After that you were conta cted over phone by the Sr. Manager to come to the branch and close the cash vaul t. You still did not come to the office to close the cash vault, which was your duty as per service regulations and cashier’s agreement. After that the Sr. Mana ger sent two messengers, namely the Guard of your office accompanied by the Part Time Sweeper at yours with the written order of the Sr. Manager to come to the branch for closing the cash vault. You defied the lawful order of the Sr. Manage r and did not come to the branch and ultimately the Sr. Manager had to close the Cash Vault in presence of Sri D. Choudhury, Dy. Manager, Sri Pallab Paul, Spl. Asstt. and Sri B.P. Dutta, Spl. Asstt. This conduct of yours constitute gross misconduct under clause no. 5(e) in terms of Bipartite Settlement dated 10.04.2002 for willful insubordination and disobe dience of lawful and reasonable order of the superior. (cid:29)

3. In response to the charges, the petitioner submitted his written stateme nt of defence on 12.12.2005. While he explained the circumstances leading to the particular incident narrated in charge No.1, in respect of charge No.2 he in hi s written statement admitted that he had left the bank feeling tired. As per the written statement, he had requested the particular official of the bank to get the strong room closed and thereafter he left for home. Immediately thereafter, the Sr. Manager of the bank rang up the petitioner and reminded of his failure t o perform duty in not closing the strong room. Explaining further, the petition er stated in his written statement that he was feeling unwell due to over exhaus tion and on good faith, he expected cooperation from other bank officials and le ft for home.

4. After the aforesaid written statement submitted by the petitioner, the d isciplinary authority decided to hold an enquiry in respect of the charges and a ppointed the Inquiry Officer. In due course, the inquiry was conducted and the I nquiry Officer submitted his report. In the report, the Inquiry Officer held the charge No.1 partially proved and charge No.2 proved. The disciplinary authority disagreeing with the findings recorded in respect of the charge No.1, assigned reasons thereof and communicated the ground of disagreement to the petitioner vi ce Annexure-10 letter dated 30.11.2006. Along with the said letter, the enquiry report was also furnished to the petitioner. Responding to the note of disagreem ent and the enquiry report, the petitioner made his representation. Thereafter, by Annexure-11 letter dated 30.1.2007, the petitioner was communicated with the tentative decision of awarding the penalty of warning under Clause-6(h) of the B ipartite Settlement dated 10.4.2002. The petitioner was asked to show cause as t o why such a penalty should not be imposed. Responding to proposed penalty, the petitioner made his representation dated 8.2.2007.

5. The disciplinary authority considering the materials on record including the inquiry report and the representation made by the petitioner, passed the An nexure-13 order dated 16.2.2007 imposing the penalty of warning.

6. I have heard Mr. M. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. P.K. Kalita, learned counsel representing the respondent Bank. I have also gone through the entire materials on record. Mr. M. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner in his elaborate submis 7. sions has submitted that the entire action on the part of the disciplinary autho rity being founded on malafide exercise of power, the disciplinary proceeding an d the resultant impugned order of penalty, is not sustainable in law. Explaining the circumstances in which the two charges had been levelled against the petiti oner, Mr. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was made the victim of the circumstances and that there was no material warranti ng initiation of any departmental enquiry against the petitioner. Par contra, Mr . Kalita, learned counsel for the respondent bank submits that having regard to the nature of misconduct attributed to the petitioner, the disciplinary authorit y having imposed a very minor penalty of warning, this Court exercising writ jur isdiction, should not interfere with the findings arrived at by the authorities i.e. the Enquiry and the Disciplinary Authority.

8. As per the provisions of the aforesaid bipartite settlement, a penalty o f warning is prescribed along with Censure and entering of adverse remark. In th e instant case, there is no indication that the penalty of warning has been ente red in the ACR. Moreover, irrespective of the penalty of warning, the disciplina ry authority has decided not to treat the period of suspension as break in servi ce and the petitioner has also been provided with all service benefits including salary for the said period. As noted above, the petitioner has virtually admitt ed the second charge, if not the first charge. The explanation furnished that he had felt tired and had left the bank without closing the Cash Vault, cannot be accepted. The petitioner being the custodian of the cash vault in a financial in stitution like bank, could not have absolved himself on the performance of that duty on the ground of being tired. In such circumstances, the Sr. Manager has te lephoned him and also sent two personnel expressing displeasure.

9. In the writ petition, there is no indication of any procedural irregular ity in conducting the enquiry. Although, the learned counsel for the petitioner has alleged biasness on the part of the disciplinary authority but nobody has be en named in the writ petition alleging biasness.

10. Needless to say that the writ court cannot re-appreciate the evidence on record and / or sit on appeal over the findings recorded by the authorities lik e Enquiry and Disciplinary Authority. The Inquiry Officer having held the petiti oner guilty of charge No.1 (Partial) and the second charge, the disciplinary aut hority imposed the minimum penalty of warning, I see no reason to interfere with the same.

10. dingly dismissed, without however, any order as to costs. In view of the above, the writ petition is devoid of any merit and accor