G.R. Parmar vs H.C. Jain and Others

Akil Kureshi, J.—Petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 16.11.1992 passed by the Disciplinary Authority by which the petitioner has been awarded a penalty of reduction of salary by one stage in time scale of pay.

Petitioner was employed with Punjab National Bank. For certain alleged misconducts, he was issued a charge-sheet dated 26.12.1989. It was a charge against him that he acted negligently in discharge of his duties. In statement of imputation of charge, it is stated that petitioner had enhanced the sanction limits, of lending, of certain customers of the bank despite following deficiencies:

a) The past conduct of the a/c was not satisfactory e.g. the credit summations for the year 1987 was only Rs. 49,584/-.

b) The party''s integrity was in doubt e.g. there was shortage of stock in 1986 and the party intentionally withheld details of assets, which they reportedly held, in the CR of 1982.

c) The party did not fulfill requirements like maintenance of stock register, routing the business through a/c etc.

d) The a/c had not been renewed for the last 5 years.

e) The party was also processing materials of others on contract basis and it was not possible to ascertain whether the entire stocks belongs to them or whether any unpaid stock is lying, as party was neither maintaining stock register nor invoices/bills.

It was therefore stated that petitioner had advanced monies where recovery was doubtful and thereby committed the said misconduct.

Petitioner resisted the charge. Inquiry was conducted. Inquiry Officer submitted his report which was supplied to the petitioner. He was allowed to make his representation, which he did. Disciplinary Authority eventually passed impugned order on 16.11.1992.

Counsel for the petitioner raised following contentions in support of the challenge.

That mandatory requirement under Regulation 6(17) of Punjab National Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1977 (herein after to be referred to as ''the Regulations'') was not followed.

That his representation was not taken into account by the Disciplinary Authority.

Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Division Bench decision of this Court dated 18.05.2005/21.10.2005 in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1798 of 2004 in Special Civil Application No.11076 of 1994, wherein it is observed as under:

An analysis of the above reproduced portions of the judgment of the Constitution Bench shows that the Supreme Court has in no uncertain terms recognised the importance of the right available to the delinquent employee to make representation not only against the procedure adopted by the inquiry officer but also the merits of the findings recorded by him and the disciplinary authority, if any, by disagreeing with the findings of Inquiry Officer. It is open to the delinquent to show that the inquiry was not held in accordance with relevant statutory rules, that he was not given full opportunity of defence and that the findings recorded by the inquiry officer are not supported by legally admissible evidence or that the finding on any particular charge is based on no evidence. If the disciplinary authority disagrees with the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer on one or more than one charges and reasons for disagreement are communicated to the delinquent, then he can show that such reasons are legally unsustainable or that tentative finding recorded by the disciplinary authority is not supported by evidence or that the disciplinary authority has ignored the material evidence. On receipt of the representation of the delinquent, the disciplinary authority gets an opportunity to consider the objections and the plea taken by him and then decide whether or not the same have merit. It is, therefore, imperative for the disciplinary authority to record reasons, howsoever briefly, indicating an objective application of mind to the points taken by the delinquent in his reply/representation. Such application of mind has to be reflected in the ultimate order to be passed by the disciplinary authority. This is the only way in which the disciplinary authority can comply with the requirement of passing of a speaking order. Indeed, it has neither been suggested before us nor the Assistant Government Pleader argued that while imposing punishment on a delinquent the disciplinary authority does not discharge quasi judicial function.

With respect to the first contention, the Regulation 6(17) need to be noted.

(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.

It is the case of the petitioner that though required under the said Regulation, he was not questioned by the Inquiry Officer as petitioner had not examined himself during the inquiry. Counsel for the bank, however, drew my attention to the Inquiry Officer''s report wherein he has recorded as under:

The entire proceedings are on documentary evidence. Neither the prosecution side nor the defence side like to produce oral evidence. The charge sheet employee also did not like to give his statement.

It can thus be seen that the petitioner himself had not permitted any such questioning. He did not prefer to give any statement. In his representation before the Disciplinary Authority against the inquiry officer''s report, though he has raised the contention that procedure under Regulation 6(17) was not followed, he has not disputed the above factual recording of the inquiry officer. In absence of any challenge to such a finding, I have no choice but to accept the same as true. If that be the situation, the petitioner having refused to give any statement under Regulation 6(17), it cannot be held that the inquiry officer did not follow the procedure laid down thereunder.

With respect to consideration of the representation of the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority, the Authority has in the impugned order itself narrated that "I have gone through the entire records, including finding of the inquiry officer and other relevant documents." There is nothing on record to suggest that the said observation is incorrect. It was not necessary for the Disciplinary Authority to refer to each and every contention and sub-contention of the petitioner even though he was agreeing with the inquiry officer''s finding.

Further, I find that the charges were borne out from documentary evidence on record. Such documents are not seriously in dispute. Findings are based on admitted and undisputable documents. Once the allegations in the charge-sheet are established, it was thereafter upto the disciplinary authority to come to appropriate finding whether the petitioner could be stated to have committed the said misconduct. Petitioner was admittedly holding a senior position in a bank. He had made advances to certain customers which advances were not supported by proper security etc.. Recovery thereof had thus become doubtful. If these charges are approved, surely the bank is right in coming to the conclusion that petitioner had acted delinquently in discharge of his duties.

No further contentions have been raised.

In the result, I find no merits in the petition, same is therefore dismissed. Rule is discharged.