AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M.R. Agnihotri, J.—In this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, Petitioner Mr. S. C. Girotra who was working as Manager in the United Commercial Bank, Punjab Division, Chandigarh, has challenged the order dated 6th February, 1986 (Annexure P. 3), by which he has been dismissed from service as also the order dated 10th September, 1986 (Annexure P. 4), by which his appeal against the order of dismissal has been rejected by the appellate authority.
In 1984, the Petitioner was working as Manager in the United Commercial Bank (hereinafter referred to as ''the Bank''), Punjab Division, in the Naya Gaon Branch, Chandigarh. He was served with a charge sheet on 15th September, 1984, to which he submitted a detailed reply. Thereafter, an Inquiry Officer was appointed to go into the charges who held the necessary inquiry and submitted his report to the disciplinary authority. Thereupon, the Divisional Manager, acting as the Disciplinary Authority of the Petitioner, passed an order on 6th February, 1986, imposing the following punishments on the Petitioner:
I, therefore, pass the following order in respect of the charge proved against Shri S. C. Girotra, in my capacity as Disciplinary Authority, under Regulation 4 read with Regulation 6 of the United Commercial Bank (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976, of officer employees:
"Charge Number
Order
1 and 2
Shri S. C. Girotra (PFM-8521), Officer in Middle Management Scale II (under suspension) is reduced to Officer''s Grade in Junior Management Scale I and his basic salary is lowered to and fitted at Rs. 1,500.00 per month in Officers Grade in Junior Management Scale I with immediate effect.
3 and 4
Shri S. C. Girotra (PFM-8521) (under suspension) is dismissed from Bank''s service with immediate effect.
5, 6 and 10
Next five grade annual increments of Shri S. C. Girotra (PFM-8521) (under suspension) are stopped with cumulative effect.
7.
Shri S C. Girotra (PFM-8521) (under suspension) is warned to be careful in future.
8 and 9
Shri S. C Girotra (PFM-8521) (under suspension) is debarred from promotion to the next higher
grade/scale for a period of five years from the date
of this order.
11
A sum of Rs. 20,000 00 (Rupees twenty thousands) along with difference of interest paid to ShriBansiLalRawal and the interest payable to him, along with interest at the rate of ten per cent per annum till the date of actual realization, be recovered from Shri S. C. Girotra (PFM-8521).
All the above punishments will run concurrently.
Sd/- K. S. Nagra, Divisional Manager, (Disciplinary Authority.)
Aggrieved by this, the Petitioner preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority of the Bank on 23rd March, 1986, which was dismissed by the Deputy General Manager (Personnel), the Appellate Authority, on 10th September, 1986.
The Petitioner has thereafter approached this Court challenging the order of his dismissal from service as well as the order of rejection of his appeal appeal, mainly on the following grounds:
(i) The Petitioner was not granted any opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses produced by the Bank against him;
(ii) The Petitioner was not allowed to lead his evidence in de-fence by producing in witnesses;
(3) The Petitioner was not given an opportunity of hearing by the Disciplinary Authority/Punishing Authority before passing the order of his dismissal from service;
(4) The Petitioner was not served with any show-cause notice after submission of inquiry report nor was a copy of the inquiry report supplied to him; and
(5) An opportunity of personal hearing was not afforded to the Petitioner by the Appellate Authority before dismissing the statutory appeal filed by the Petitioner against the order of his dismissal from service.
4 In nutshell, therefore, the whole case of the Petitioner is that his defence was prejudiced as an adequate and reasonable opportunity to defend his case was not affirded to him which has resulted into the violation of the principles of natural justice.
In the written statement filed by the Bank, though the broad factual position of the case has been admitted, yet efforts have been made to justify the action of the Bank and the procedure adopted by the Inquiry Officer as well as by the Punishing Authority and Appellate Authority, by stating that when detailed reply to the charge-sheet had been submitted by the Petitioner along with the written brief before the Inquiry Officer, there was hardly any necessity of permitting him to cross-examine the witnesses produced by the bank, especially when those witnesses had been produced only for the purposes of production and verification of certain documents. It has further been emphasised that there was no requirement of any personal hearing or even an opportunity of hearing to be afforded to the Petitioner by the Punishing Authority before passing the order of dismissal from service nor was any such opportunity required to be afforded to the Petitioner before disposing of the statutory appeal. Thus, according to the Respondents, no prejudice was caused to the Petitioner in defending his case at any stage.
After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties and having gone through the material on the record, I am of the considered view that the impugned order of dismissal from service as well as the rejection of appeal filed against the same cannot stand the scrutiny of law as the Respondents have violated the principles of natural justice before passing the aforesaid orders.
United Commercial Bank is a nationalised Bank within the meaning of Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970 u/s 19 of the Act, the Board of Directors of the Bank, in consultation with the Reserve Bank and with the previous sanction of the Central Government, have framed the regulations known United Commercial Bank Officer Employees'' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976. Regulation 6 of the aforesaid Regulations, lays down a detailed procedure for imposing major penalties, that is, dismissal from service According to Clauses (13), (14) (15), (16) (17) and (18) of Regulation 6, it is the duty of the Inquiry Officer to allow the employee facing the inquiry to cross-examine the witnesses produced by the Bank against him and thereafter to permit him to produce his own defence. This right of the Petitioner has admittedly been denied to him. Whether the witnesses were formal or material or their evidence was of substantial or of no significance, is wholly immaterial for the purposes of the Inquiry Officer. The mere fact that provision for filing written briefs by the parties has been made in Clause (18) of Regulation 6 does not absolve the Inquiry Officer from compling with the earlier provisions of the Regulation. Consequently, the inquiry proceedings held against the Petitioner stood vitiated in law.
Again, after the Inquiry Officer submitted report, admittedly neither any show-cause notice was served on the Petitioner nor was he apprised of the inquiry report. No opportunity of hearing or explaining his position was afforded to the Petitioner by the Punishing Authority before the passing the impugned order of dismissal from service. The procedure adopted is wholly violative of the principles of natural justice as the material collected by the Inquiry Officer could not be relied upon by the Disciplinary Authority/Punishing Authority in the absence of the Petitioner. This resulted in vitiating the order of dismissal passed by the punishing Authority.
The sane infirmity of violation of the principles of natural justice crept in at the stage of disposal of the appeal which was a statutory one preferred by the Petitioner under Regulation 17 of the aforesaid Regulations. It was the duty of the Appellate Authority to hear the Appellant (Petitioner) before dismissing the appeal as an objective consideration is possible only if the delinquent employee is heard and given a chance to satisfy the Appellate Authority regarding the final orders that may be passed in his appeal. This is the requirement of fair play and justice also.
I am fortified in arriving at the above conclusion by the following authoritative pronouncements of the Privy Council and Supreme Court: The AIR 1948 121 (Privy Council) Khem Chand Vs. The Union of India (UOI )and Others, and Ram Chander Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others,
On the other hand, Mr. R. S. Mittal, learned Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the Bank, has vehemently pleaded to contend that in the absence of any statutory provision, principles of natural justice could not compel the Disciplinary/Punishing/Appeliate Authority to hear the Petitioner in person or to afford him an opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned orders. According to the learned Counsel, submission of written briefs by the Petitioner should be considered as adequate and reasonable opportunity-fair enough to defend the Petitioner With respect to the learned Counsel, I do not subscribe to the proposition, as neinther any precedent nor any principle has been cited by him in support of his submission.
Consequently, I allow this writ petition and by issuing a writ of certiorari, quash the impugned orders dated 6th February, 1986 (Annexure P.3), by which the Petitioner was dismissed from service and dated 10th September, 1986 (Annexure P.4), by which his appeal was dismissed. Resultantly, the Petitioner shall be reinstated in service and shall also be entitled to the arrears of salary and other allowances to which he would have been entitled, had he not been dismissed from service in pursuance of the impugned orders However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.