Bank of Baroda vs V.V. Kamath

K.L. Manjunath, J.—The appellant-bank has filed this appeal, questioning the legality and correctness of the order passed by a learned Single Judge in WP No. 36521 of 2000 dated 22-9-2006.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

The admitted facts of the case are that: The respondent, who was working as a senior manager at Panambur branch of the appellant-bank was made to face a disciplinary proceedings on the allegation that he flouted the directions issued by the bank from time to time and has failed to discharge his duties efficiently and diligently in sanctioning of loans and/or recovery of loans from various borrowers. Based on the same, an inquiring officer was appointed. In the inquiry, the respondent submitted his reply. Thereafter, a defence counsel was also engaged by the respondent. During the inquiry, certain documents were relied upon by the bank and they were marked as exhibits in the inquiry. However, no witnesses were examined on behalf of the appellant-bank. Based on the documentary evidence let in by the bank, the inquiring officer came to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the respondent are proved. The disciplinary authority having heard the respondent, passed an order, imposing the penalty of compulsory retirement from service, against which, the respondent filed an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority also concurred with the disciplinary authority and dismissed the appeal. In the circumstance, the respondent filed the writ petition raising several grounds. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition only on the ground that the inquiring officer has failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of clause (17) of Regulation 6 of the Bank of Baroda Officer Employees'' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 [for short, the Regulations] and directed the appellant-bank to reinstate the respondent into service with 50% of back-wages and other consequential benefits. This order of the learned Single Judge is called in question in this appeal by the bank.

Regulation 6(17) of the Regulations reads as under:

"17. The Inquiring Authority may after the officer employee closes his evidence, and shall, if the officer employee has not got himself examined, generally question him on the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence for the purpose of enabling the officer employee to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him." In the instant case, on behalf of the bank, no witnesses were examined. Respondent also did not step into the witness box. His case is that on account of non-compliance with the provisions of clause (17) of Regulation 6 of the Regulations is prejudicial and there was no opportunity for him to explain the circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. The learned Single Judge, based on the said submission of the respondent, allowed the entire writ petition without considering the other grounds urged by the respondent.

Sri N S Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant-bank, relying on the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of this court in the case of Canara Bank v. A.V. Hanumanthappa [WA No. 4221 of 2011, decided on 29-6-2011], contends that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in setting aside the order passed by the disciplinary authority ordering compulsory retirement from service, because clause (17) of Regulation 6 of the Regulations is not a mandatory provision. The Division Bench of this court in the case of A V Hanumanthappa [supra] has taken the view that unless and until the employee who suffered an order of punishment makes out a case that on account of non-compliance with the provisions of clause (17) of Regulation 6 of the Regulations the employee has put to irreparable injury or hardship and it is prejudicial to his/her interest, he/she cannot have any grievance if the said provision is not followed. According to him, the said matter was taken in appeal to the Hon''ble Supreme Court and the Hon''ble Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition. He submits that relying on the same, another coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Bank of India v. C.K. Sardeshpande [WA No. 4393 of 2011, decided on 6-8-2012], has also taken the same view.

In view of the above legal position, we are of the view that the order passed by the learned Single Judge in allowing the writ petition in toto and directing the bank to reinstate the respondent-employee into service has to be set aside.

Having held so, we also notice that the learned Single Judge has not considered the other grounds urged by the respondent-employee in the writ petition. When there is no finding on the other grounds urged by the writ petitioner, we are of the opinion that the matter should be remanded to the learned Single Judge with a request to consider the other grounds urged by the respondent-writ petitioner.

In the result, the appeal is allowed. The order dated 22-9-2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP No. 36521 of 2000 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the learned Single Judge to consider the writ petition on merits in regards to the other grounds urged by the writ petitioner, holding that non-compliance with the provisions of clause (17) of Regulation 6 of the Regulations cannot be a ground to set aside the order of punishment.