High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 7053/2004 PRESENT HON’BLE MR JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN J U D G M E N T AND O R D E R(ORAL) Heard Mr. A. B. Siddique, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also hea
Legal Reasoning
rd Mr. D. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. By way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of In dia, petitioner seeks quashing of enquiry report dated 14.8.2002 and order of di smissal dated 9.10.2002. 3. Case of the petitioner is that he had entered service in the United Bank of India (Bank) in its Lakhipur Branch as temporary sub-employee with effect fr om 13.9.1972. In the course of his service, petitioner was promoted and at the r elevant time, he was serving as Clerk in the Lead Bank Office of the Bank at Kar imganj. 4. Order dated 4.10.2001 was issued by the Regional Manager of the Bank, w ho was the disciplinary authority, placing the petitioner under suspension in co ntemplation of disciplinary proceeding. Thereafter, charge-sheet dated 11.10.20 01 was issued to the petitioner. The gist of the charges framed are as under :- (i) Charge No.1 :- Making fictitious entries in C.D. Account No.67 for Rs.6,85,448.90 and withdrawal therefrom ; (ii) Charge No.2 :- making manipulative entries in CD Account No.67 causing fraudulent withdrawal of Rs.95,922.00 (iii) Charge No.3 :- Manipulation of general ledger on 13 occasions. Petitioner was, therefore, charged with committing gross misconduct, acting in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the Bank and causing financial loss to t he Bank. 1. Petitioner submitted show cause reply on 31.10.2001. Petitioner’s reply was found not satisfactory and, therefore, Bank decid 2. ed to hold departmental enquiry into the charges levelled against the petitione r. Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were accordingly appointed. 3. After completion of the departmental enquiry, Enquiry Officer submitted enquiry report dated 14.8.2002 to the disciplinary authority. Charge Nos. 1 and 2 were held to be proved. In respect of 13 instances of Charge No.3, 12 were held to be proved and one partially proved. Enquiry Officer opined that petition er had committed fraudulent acts and defrauded the Bank to the tune of Rs.5,99,7 60.85, which was a misconduct and an act prejudicial to the interest of the Bank . 4. A copy of the enquiry report was furnished by the disciplinary authority to the petitioner vide letter dated 14.8.2002 whereby the petitioner was aske d to submit his views in writing on the enquiry report, if he so desired. 5. ated the stand taken in his show cause reply. Petitioner submitted a representation dated 2.9.2002 whereby he reiter Disciplinary authority tentatively decided to impose the penalty of dism 6. issal on the petitioner but before taking a final decision, notice dated 9.9.20 02 was issued to the petitioner informing him that he would be given an opportu nity of personal hearing before decision was taken. After the petitioner was gi ven opportunity of personal hearing, disciplinary authority passed order dated 9.10.2002 imposing the penalty (cid:28) to be dismissed without notice (cid:29) with immediate effect. 7. eliefs as indicated above. Aggrieved, petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking the r 8. Respondents have filed counter affidavit. Stand taken in the affidavit is that petitioner had resorted to fraudulent practice since the year 1998 which was detected in the year 2001. Petitioner confessed about his activities befor e the Bank authorities and gave assurance to make good the loss suffered by t he bank. As the Bank authorities had lost confidence on the petitioner, it was decided to conduct a departmental proceeding against the petitioner. Petitioner himself had deposited an amount of 20,000/- on 10.6.2001 towards payment on acc ount of loss suffered by the Bank with assurance that balance amount would be pa id in instalments. The disciplinary proceeding was conducted by following the d ue procedure. Petitioner participated in the enquiry. Though the Enquiry office r gave opportunity to the petitioner to utilize the service of a defence represe ntative, petitioner declined the offer and defended his case himself. Enquiry Of ficer found the charges against the petitioner to have been proved, following wh ich impugned penalty was imposed after giving the petitioner adequate opportuni ty of hearing. The gravity of misconduct justified imposition of penalty of dis missal without notice. 9. Mr. Siddique, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charg e memo as well as the list of witnesses and documents relied upon by the Bank i n the enquiry against the petitioner were not furnished to the petitioner. There fore, petitioner could not defend himself properly. According to him, this lac una in not furnishing a copy of the show cause notice and other documents as ind icated above has vitiated the departmental proceeding against the petitioner. As the penalty was imposed by following a procedure which was in violation of th e principles of natural justice, learned counsel seeks intervention of this Cou rt to set aside the order of penalty. He submits that if necessary, the Court ma y direct drawing up of a fresh departmental enquiry against the petitioner. 10. Mr. D. Chakraborty, learned counsel for the respondents on the other han d, submits that the materials on record do not indicate that the petitioner had made any grievance at any point of time regarding non-supply of the show cause n otice, list of documents and witnesses relied upon by the Bank. On the contrary , referring to the various documents which are on record, learned counsel for t he respondents submits that petitioner had admitted his misconduct and, therefo re, it is not open to the petitioner to raise the said grievance at this stag e. He submits that petitioner was a Bank employee and was required to maintain complete integrity. Since the management of the Bank had lost confidence on hi m, they rightly instituted the departmental proceeding against the petitioner and after following due procedure, the impugned penalty was imposed which is com mensurate with the gravity of the misconduct. Therefore, he prays for dismissa l of the writ petition. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the respondents placed reliance on the following decisions :-