M.S. Bajwa vs Punjab National Bank

Sabina, J.—Petitioner has filed this petition seeking a direction to the respondents to place him above his juniors in terms of decision given by this Court in CWP No. 4689 of 1989 dated 19.5.1993.

Case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he joined the services of the respondents as a Clerk on 15.7.1955. Petitioner was promoted as Assistant Manager in the year 1976 and was promoted as Manager in the Middle Management Grade Scale-II on 16.8.1978. Petitioner was served with a charge sheet in the year 1982. Petitioner challenged his suspension by filing CWP No. 3131 of 1984. However, the suspension order was revoked vide order dated 18.10.1984. Some more charge sheets were served to the petitioner and he filed civil suit challenging the same. The civil suit was decided in favour of the petitioner and the appeal filed by the bank was dismissed. Petitioner was eligible for promotion to Scale-III with effect from 1.1.1983. However, the interview letter was sent to the petitioner at a wrong address. Punishment order was passed against the petitioner on 16.11.1984. By way of CWP No. 4689 of 1989, petitioner challenged the punishment orders dated 9.1.1987 and 25.4.1988. The said punishment orders were set aside by this Court vide judgment dated 19.5.1993 (Annexure P-5). Despite passing of the said decision, petitioner had not been given promotion with effect from the year 1983. Hence, the present petition by the petitioner.

Preliminary objection No. 1 of the written statement reads as under:-

That there is no cause of action for the petitioner to invoke the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Hon''ble Court. It is submitted in this regard that the petitioner has been considered for promotion in accordance with the promotion policy applicable in the case of the petitioner and keeping in view the directions passed by this Hon''ble Court in the C.W.P. No. 4689 of 1989. The judgment dated 19.5.93 in the said case has been complied with in letter and spirit. Nothing remains due to the petitioner. The claim of the petitioner that he was entitled to be promoted from MMG Scale-II to MMG Scale-III w.e.f. 1984 is not tenable, as the same is misconceived one. It is relevant to mention here that it is wrong that the petitioner was eligible to be called for interview for promotion of MMG Scale-III. As number of vacancies were very less, the petitioner could not have been called at the relevant time. It is relevant to state in this regard that claim of the petitioner in respect of the above selection is untenable because firstly he remained absent in the above process of interview, secondly even if it is presumed for the sake of argument that the petitioner had appeared in the interview held in Feb./March 1983, a charge sheet dated 5.11.82 was pending against him at the time of interview and the result for the said interview would have been kept in sealed cover in terms of PD Circular No. 18/82 dated 2.3.82 and as a matter of fact, another charge sheet dated 5.6.83 was also pending against the petitioner which culminated in imposition of major penalty upon the petitioner vide an order dated 16.11.84 whereby major penalty of reduction of salary by three stages was imposed upon him. Accordingly in terms of provisions of the promotion policy applicable at the relevant point of time, the result of the petitioner kept in sealed cover would have been cancelled. As regards the interview held for promotion to MMG Scale-III in October 1983/February 1984, petitioner was not called because of less number of vacancies as the candidates who were placed in MMG Scale-II upto 31.7.78 were only called for interview whereas the date of placement of the petitioner in MMG Scale-II was 30.8.1978. It is further relevant to mention here that consequent upon the imposition of major penalty upon the petitioner by the disciplinary authority vide its order dated 16.11.84 in respect of the charge sheets dated 5.11.82 and 25.6.83, the petitioner stood debarred for three years for consideration for promotion from the date of punishment in terms of provision of promotion policy circulated by them vide PD Circular No. 568 dated 25.3.83. As such petitioner was debarred for consideration for promotion to MMG Scale-III upto 16.11.1987. Copies of the circulars for promotion policy are not being attached for the sake of the brevity, however the same will be shown at the time of hearing the case. Thereafter promotion policy was changed by the bank vide PD Circular No. 1081 dated 22.2.88. Under this new promotion policy, selection for promotion to MMG Scale-III was conducted by the bank in September 89. It is also pertinent to mention here that the punishment dated 16.11.84 has not been challenged by the bank before any court of law and the same is on the record. In view of the position stated above, the petitioner has rightly been given the promotion of MMG Scale-III w.e.f. 21.11.1989 along with his batch mates and for the relevant selection. As per the directions of this Hon''ble Court, the petitioner has been considered for promotion to MMG Scale-III treating him eligible in September 1989 and the petitioner has been given the promotion retrospective effect that w.e.f. 21.11.89 and all other consequential benefits has already been given to the petitioner. Thus, it is submitted that writ petition has no force and the same is liable to be dismissed.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record available on the file carefully.

Facts are not much in dispute in the present case. Petitioner was working with the respondents and admittedly, charge sheets dated 5.11.1982 and 25.6.1983 were served on him. Vide punishment order dated 16.11.1984, petitioner stood debarred for three years for consideration for promotion as vide the said order, penalty of reduction of salary by three stages was imposed upon him. Therefore, petitioner could not be promoted in the year 1983 as disciplinary proceedings were pending against him. Moreover, the disciplinary proceedings ultimately resulted in passing of the punishment order dated 16.11.1984. Assuming that the case of the petitioner had been considered during the pendency of the enquiry proceedings and had been placed in a sealed cover, petitioner would not have got any benefit as ultimately punishment order was passed against him on 16.11.1984. Vide Annexure P-5, order dated 9.1.1987 whereby petitioner had been reverted to the post of Assistant Manager, was set aside. However, the said decision fails to advance the case of the petitioner in view of punishment order dated 16.11.1984.

Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that assuming that petitioner could not be promoted in the year 1983 in view of the punishment order dated 16.11.984, he was liable to be promoted with effect from 17.11.1987 as by the said date, the effect of the punishment order was over.

There is no force in the said argument raised by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner as it is the case of the respondents that promotion policy was changed by the bank vide circular dated 22.2.1988. Selection for promotion to MMG Scale-III was conducted in September 1989 as per the new promotion policy. Petitioner was promoted as MMG Scale-III with effect from 21.11.1989. There is nothing on record to suggest that any junior of the petitioner had earned promotion during the period from 17.11.987 to 21.11.1989. Therefore, it is evident that as and when the selection for promotion to MMG Scale-III was conducted by the bank after the bar of the punishment order dated 16.11.1984 was over, case of the petitioner was taken up for consideration and he earned his promotion.

No ground for interference is made out.

Dismissed.