Punjab and Sind Bank vs Chand Singh and Others

M.L. Singhal, J.—Chand Singh is officer in the Punjab & Sind Bank Vide order dated 07 11 1989, Deputy Genera! Manager (Zonal Head), Punjab & Sind Bank, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh, imposed upon him the following punishment pursuant to charge-sheet issued to him vide letter dated 14 10 1987 and enquiry conducted into that charge-sheet

(i) Reduction in the same time scale by two stages

(ii) Recovery of Rs 500/- per month from salary till adjustment of Rs. 5,606 78 outstanding in I.B.C. and balance outstanding in OD of Waryam Singh & M/s Super Auto Diesel Services at B.O. Muktsar,

Facts as set out by the Plaintiff: No proper procedure as adopted for conducting enquiry as laid down in the Punjab & Sind Bank Officer, Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1981. No proper or reasonable opportunity was given to him to defend his case before the start of enquiry, during the enquiry, after the submission of the enquiry report and before awarding punishing vide order dated 7.11.1989. Deputy General Manager (Zonal Head) was not the competent/disciplinary authority to issue charge sheet, order for enquiry and pass order dated .7.11.1989 punishing him with the said punishment because at the time of awarding punishment, he was working as Junior Manager Grade Scale-I (hereinafter referred to as ''JMGS-I'') and qua him, the punishing authority was Regional Manager and not the Deputy General Manger (Zonal Head). Defendants are not entitled to recover the amount of Rs. 5,606.78p from the Plaintiff in the light of decree dated 30.7.1991 obtained by Punjab & Sind Bank in Civil Suit No. 297 of 1989 titled "Punjab & Sind Bank v. M/s Super Auto Diesel Services", from the Court of Additional Senior Sub Judge, Muktsar. On these allegations, the Plaintiff filed suit for declaration that order dated 7.11.1989 of Deputy General Manager (Zonal Head)/disciplinary authority of the Punjab and Sind Bank, Zonal Office, Sector 17-B, Chandigarh, imposing upon him the aforesaid punishment was null and void, illegal, unlawful, against equity, justice, rules and regulations and also for permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from recovering the amount of Rs. 5,606.78 pursuant to order dated 07.11.1989.

Defendants contested the suit of the Plaintiff. It was urged that the suit is barred by time. Suit is not maintainable in the present form. It was denied that there was no proper enquiry into the charge-sheet in accordance with law and procedure governing the conduct of enquiries. Order of Punishments is valid, legal, lawful, and in consonance with equity, justice and rules & regulations. Enquiry report was supplied to the Plaintiff and proper and reasonable opportunity was given to him to defend his case before the start of enquiry and during the pendency of the enquiry and also after the submission of the enquiry report and also before awarding him punishment vide order dated 07.11.1989. It was denied that the amount of Rs. 5,606.78 was not recoverable from the Plaintiff in view of the decree passed in Civil Suit No. 297 of 1989 titled ''Punjab & Sind Bank v. M/s Super Auto Diesel Services'' by Additional Senior Sub Judge, Muktsar.

On these pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:

(1) Whether the order dated 7.11.89 for which punishment was awarded to the Plaintiff is illegal, void and null on the grounds mentioned in the plaint? OPP.

(2) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to declaration as prayed for?OPP.

(3) Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to the injunction as prayed for?OPP.

(4) Whether the suit is time barred?OPD.

(5) Whether the suit is not maintainable?OPD

(6) Whether the suit has not been properly assessed for the purposes of Court fee?OPD

(6-A) Whether DGM(Zonal Head) was not competent authority/Disciplinary authority to issue the charge sheet and enquiry in passing of the impugned order against the Plaintiff as to order dated 7.11.89 as alleged? OPP

(7) Relief.

Vide order dated 12.3.1997, Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division), Faridkot, decreed the suit and declared the impugned order dated 07.11.1989 as null and void, illegal and against the principles of natural justice, in view of his finding that the disciplinary authority of the Plaintiff was Regional Manager while the impugned order was passed by Deputy General Manager (Zonal Head). It was found that the Regional Manager was the disciplinary authority of JMGS-I which the Plaintiff was at the relevant time. Plaintiff''s suit was found to be within time.

Punjab & Sind Bank went in appeal which was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Faridkot, vide order dated 20.7.1998. Still not satisfied, Punjab & Sind Bank has come up in further appeal to this Court.

It was submitted by Learned Counsel for the Appellant that the impugned order passed by Deputy General Manager (Zonal Head), disciplinary authority, dated 07.11.1989 i.e. Exhibit D-1 is valid legal and proper as he was competent to take action against the delinquent who was JMGS-I at the relevant time. It was submitted that he was charges-sheeted by Assistant General Manager (disciplinary authority) who was competent to charge-sheet him. Shri D.S. Bajwa, Regional Manager of Punjab & Sind Bank conducted enquiry and found delinquent guilty of all the charges framed against him vide charge-sheet dated 14.10.1987. Appeal against the punishment was dismissed by Deputy General Manager (Personnel) (appellate authority) of the Punjab & Singh Bank. It may be mentioned here that the enquiry was conducted ex parte against the delinquent.

Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that in respect of JMGS-I, the disciplinary authority was Regional Manager while Zonal Head was the appellate authority and the Deputy General Manager (Personnel) was the reviewing authority. It was submitted that Deputy General Manager (Zonal Head) was one step higher than the Regional Manager. It was the Regional Manager who was the disciplinary authority qua JMGS-I. It was submitted that if the Regional Manager had passed an order of Punishment, the delinquent could file appeal before the appellate authority i.e. Zonal Head and after dismissal of his appeal, he could have sought review of his punishment from the reviewing authority which was Deputy General Manager (Personnel) in this case. It was submitted that there was lack of the grant of fair opportunity to the delinquent and if fair opportunity had been granted to the delinquent, he could have tried his luck before two authorities and sought the quashing of punishment. In this case, he could try his luck before the Deputy General Manager (Personnel) only as Deputy General Manager (Zonal Head) acted as the disciplinary head. In support of the submission, he drew my attention to Punjab & Sind Bank Officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulation, 1981, and Annexure-F therein, which has specified the disciplinary, appellate and reviewing authority. At serial number-7 of Annexure-F. in respect of officers in the rank of JMGS-I working in branch offices/regional offices and offices under control of Regional Manager, the disciplinary authority is Regional Manager, appellate authority is Zonal Head and reviewing authority is Deputy General Manager (Personnel). There is no doubt that Regional Manager was the disciplinary authority, Deputy General Manager (Zonal Head) was the appellate authority and Deputy General Manager ((Personnel) was the re-viewing authority of JMGS-I. It was submitted that the Zonal Head by-passed the disciplinary authority and himself passed the order of punishment which is against the provisions of Serial No. 7, Annexure -F, ibid. Appeal filed by the Plaintiff was decided by the reviewing authority and not by Zonal Head.

Learned Counsel for the Appellant, on the other hand, submitted that in respect of offices in the case of MMGS-II and III, the disciplinary authority was an officer in the rank of Assistant General Manager and above. In support of the submission, he drew my attention to Staff Circular No. 1625 dated 01.12.1986 which lays down that in suppression of Staff Circular No. 1276 dated 02.3.1983, in exercise of the powers conferred by regulation 3(7) of Punjab & Sind Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1981, Board of Directors have amended the "competent authority" for the purpose of the said regulations and in respect of the officers - JMGS-I, MMGS-II and III, an officer in the rank of Assistant General Manager and above was laid down as "Competent Authority". It was submitted that the Deputy General Manager (Zonal Head) was, thus, competent authority to punish the delinquent. Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that this circular was superseded vide Staff Circular No. 1784 dated 13.4.1988 which lays down that in respect of JMGS-I working in the BO/RO and offices under control of Regional Manager, Regional Manager shall be disciplinary authority, Zonal Head shall be appellate authority and Deputy General Manager (Personnel) shall be reviewing authority.

In my opinion, Deputy General Manager (Zonal Head), could pass the impugned order and punish the delinquent because he happened to be an authority superior in rank to the Regional Manger. In this case, regional Manger was the inquiring authority. It was not proper for the Regional Manager to consider the enquiry report submitted by himself and act as the disciplinary authority. When the Regional Manager was the enquiring authority, the authority superior in rank to him could be the disciplinary authority. Quite a fair opportunity was granted to the delinquent, inasmuch as, the impugned order of punishment was passed by the Deputy General Manager (Zonal Head) and appeal was heard against that order by Deputy General Manager (Personnel) as appellate authority. Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that no proper opportunity was given to the delinquent to defend himself in the enquiry. Suffice it to say it lay upon him to prove that no opportunity to defend himself properly, was given in there enquiry. In response to the charge-sheet, the delinquent did not file any written statement to the article of charges issued to him by the disciplinary authority. Delinquent participated in the enquiry on 26.12.1988 and 30.1.1989. Full opportunity was given to him to cross-examine the witnesses of the management on these dates. Enquiring authority was justified in proceeding ex parte against the delinquent. When he failed to turn up before the enquiring authority, then the enquiry had been shifted to Muktsar, where the delinquent was residing. After the enquiry was over and the enquiring authority had submitted its report, Deputy General Manager (Zonal Head) disciplinary authority was not requited to give show cause notice to the delinquent calling upon him to show cause why this or that penalty be not imposed upon him. Issuance of second show cause notice was not envisaged by the Punjab & Sind Bank Officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1981. On proof of charge/charges, it was upto the disciplinary authority to think of the punishment which would meet the ends of justice.

Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the recovery could not have been imposed upon him when decree was passed by Additional Senior Sub Judge, Muktsar in favour of Punjab & Sind Bank against M/s Super Auto Diesel Services for the recovery of Rs. 5,320/- with costs. Recovery was imposed upon the delinquent for the losses caused to the bank by him. Bank was entitled to recover this loss from the delinquent. If the bank has been re-imbursed for this loss by M/s Super Auto Diesel Services, then the bank is not entitled to be re-imbursed for this loss twice over.

Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that when both the Courts below have concurrently found in favour of the delinquent, there should be no interference with the concurrent finding arrived at by the Courts below, by this Court sitting in second appeal when no substantial question of law has arisen. In support of his contention. He drew my attention to Kulwant Kaur and Ors. v. Gurdial Singh Maan (dead) by L Rs and Others , (2001) 128 P.L.R. 492 (S.C). Suffice it to say, it is not a finding of fact arrived at concurrently by the two Courts below which is in question now. Two Courts below have arrived at the same finding whether Deputy General Manager (Zonal Head) was the disciplinary authority in respect of the delinquent who was JMGS-I at the relevant time, which is not a finding of fact.

For the reasons given above, this appeal is partly allowed. Judgments and decrees of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Faridkot and those of Additional District Judge, Faridkot, are set aside to this extent that the bank shall not recover the amount of Rs. , 5,606.78p from the Plaintiff provided it has recovered the amount in execution of the decree obtained against M/s Super Auto Diesel Services, Muktsar in Civil Suit No. 297 of 1989 vide order of learned Additional Senior Sub Judge, Muktsar, dated 30.7.1991. If the Bank has already recovered the decretal amount from M/s Super Auto Diesel Services, Malout and has recovered the amount or some amount from the delinquent also, the bank shall refund that amount to the delinquent. Punishment of reduction in the same time scale by two stages imposed upon the delinquent shall remain unhinged. No costs.