CANARA BANK Vs. DEBASIS DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Scope and ambit of Regulations 6(18) and 6(21) of the Canara Bank Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations) fall for determination in this appeal.

(2.) Filtering out unnecessary details, the factual background relevant for adjudication for the present dispute is as follows :- Four charge-sheets dated 12-12-1987, 5-11-1987, 23-3-1989 and 25-5-1989 were issued to respondent No. 1-Debasis Das (hereinafter referred to as the employee) by the functionaries of the Canara Bank, a Government of India undertaking. Disciplinary proceedings were commenced. Charge-sheet dated 5-11-1987 related to the non-vacation of residential quarter by the employee after expiry of the lease period. On completion of inquiry in respect of the said charge, disciplinary authority directed dismissal of the employee from the services of the Bank by order dated 28-8-1989. The disciplinary authority thereafter passed an order on 13-9-1989 which is the bone of contention of the parties. Details of the said order shall be dealt with infra and after the recital of the factual position is completed.Order of dismisal was challenged by the employee before the Calcutta High Court. By order dated 14-12-1990 in Writ Petition CO. No. 10514(W)/1989, the order of dismissal was set aside. Employee was reinstated on 28-1-1991. After reinstatement three office orders were issued to proceed with the inquiries relating to the other three charge-sheets. According to the employer-Bank the proceedings were earlier suspended. Enquiry Officers and Presiding Officers were appointed in those proceedings. By letter dated 6-4-1991 employee requested to drop the proceedings in the said charge-sheets and to exonerate him from the charges contained. On 23-4-1991 he was advised by the authority to attend the inquiry proceedings. On 30-9-1991 list of the documents along with the copies were sent to the employee. On 24-11-1992 employee for the first time took the stand that he had been exonerated of the charges contained in the three charge-sheets and all proceedings in connection therewith had been dropped. Along with his letter, a photocopy purporting to be a copy of letter dated 13-9-1989 written by one Shri K. V. Nayak, officer of the Bank was sent. According to the appellant the enclosure to employees letter dated 24-11-1992 was a fabricated document and contents of the actual letter dated 13-9-1989 sent by the Bank had been interpolated. Treating the letter to be a fabricated document further charge-sheet dated 21-5-1994 was issued where it was stated that during the progress of the pending three enquiries employee had produced certain forgeabricated documents before the disciplinary authority and thus constituted misconduct. The charge sheet along with statement of imputation were served on the employee. On 7-6-1994 employee wrote to the Acting Dy. General Manager that the proceedings dated 13-9-1989 received by him from the Bank was singed by the Dy. General Manager and not by the Acting General Manager or Shri K. V. Nayak as alleged or at all. Enquiry into the charge-sheet was conducted, the documents relied upon by the management were produced and the office copy of the letter issued under the signature of Mr. K. V. Nayak, Acting General Manager was produced. Certain witnesses were examined. During the inquiry employee was asked to produce the original letter claimed to have been received by him, but his stand was that he did not desire to part custody of the defence documents since the same are very much required at a later stage. On 1-4-1995 the minutes were accordingly recorded. The employee on that date made a statement that he wanted to make further submissions in his written briefs which he would be submitting in terms of Rule 6(18) and he was closing his evidence/defence. The Presenting Officer was directed by the Inquiry Officer to submit his written briefs within 10 days i.e. before 12-4-1995. He was also instructed to send a copy of his written briefs to the charged officer simultaneously. Employee was further directed to submit his written briefs within 10 days of the receipt of the written briefs from the Presenting Officer. The Presenting Officer submitted his written briefs on 19-4-1995. Since no written briefs were sent by the employee, the Inquiry Officer sent his report to the disciplinary authority on 2-5-1995. On 19-5-1995 disciplinary authority sent copy of the enquiry report to the employee and asked for his submission in relation to the findings recorded by the Inquiry Authority. Employee took the stand that he could not submit written briefs as he had not received copy of the Presenting Officers written briefs. He requested for a copy. The Disciplinary Athority on 2-7-1995 wrote to the employee that Presenting Officers briefs was sent to him on 2-5-1995 and as such he could make his submission based on the findings of the Enquiry Officer and also on the oral/documentary evidence which were recorded during the course of inquiry. He further informed that such submissions would be taken into account for final decision in the matter. Employee by his letter dated 12-7-1995 stated that without copy of the Presenting Officers written briefs no effective submissions could be made on the findings of the enquiry report. The disciplinary authority sent copy of the briefs to the employee and asked him to make his submissions on the findings of the enquiry report. Employee asked for time till 10-8-1995. Finally on 4-8-1995 the employee stated that the written briefs were being sent for consideration of the Enquiry Officer. On 7-8-1995 the Disciplinary Authority asked the employee to file submissions to the findings of the inquiry authority. On 12-8-1995 the employee took the stand that the written briefs should be considered by the inquiry authority whereafter the findings of the Inquiry Officer should be made and he should be permitted 30 days time to give his submissions on the findings of the said report. He did not make or send submissions on the findings of the Inquiry Officer. By order dated 29-9-1995 Disciplinary Authority held the employee guilty and imposed punishment of dismissal from service agreeing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer. On 11-10-1995 Howrah Branch of the appellant-Bank received order for effecting service on the employee. But he left the Bank along with certain keys. Complaint was lodged before the police on 13-10-1995 regarding the removal of the keys. On 6-11-1995 employee filed writ petition before the Calcutta High Court. Learned single Judge of the High Court passed interim order restraining the Bank from giving effect to the final order. Thereafer on 8-11-1995 the employee attended the Bank. An appeal was preferred against the interim order by the Bank and the Appellate Court vacated the interim order. Employee filed a Special Leave Petition before this Court which was dismissed. The order of dismissal was given effect on 5-2-1996 operative from 29-1-1996. Employee filed an appeal before the prescribed departmental appellate authority. On 8-1-1997 the employee was informed that the appellate authority would give personal hearing to him on 27-1-1997. During personal hearing, employee submitted a written statement and submitted some documents, one of them purported to be copy of letter dated 13-9-1989, which was at variance with one which was produced by the employee earlier and was also at variance with the original letter produced by the management during the inquiry. According to the appellant this letter was another forged and fabricated document and this time the letter was claimed to have been signed by the Dy. General Manager and not by the Acting General Manager. In any event, it is not necessary to deal with the aspect in detail. The appellate authority passed an order of dismissal. Employee filed a Writ Petition No. 9707(W) of 1997, with application for return of the documents produced by him before the appellate authority. Learned single Judge disposed of the interim application directing the appellant-Bank to return the original documents produced by the employee before the appellate authority. When these documents were returned to the employee he refused to accept them stating that he had not filed them before the appellate authority. The learned single Judge allowed the writ petition holding that Inquiry Officer had given an opportunity to the Presenting Officer to file his written briefs and similar opportunity ought to have been given to the employee and thus there has been violation of principles of natural justice. Further direction was given to send the disputed documents to the Government Handwriting and Questioned Documents Expert. It was observed that, if so desired, the parties may pray for adducing fresh evidence before the Enquiry Officer which shall be considered. The said order was challenged before the Division Bench. The appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench, inter alia, with the conclusion that provisions of Regulation 6(18) are mandatory in nature and the employee did not get an opportunity to file his written briefs before the Inquiry Officer. Prejudice is patent as the author of the disputed documents was not produced to prove or disprove his signature and contents of the letters in question. Written briefs had to be considered by the Inquiry Officer in terms of Regulation 6(18), and order of dismissal shows that written briefs of the employee had not been considered. An unfair trial cannot be cured by a fair appeal. There was no question of directing the proceedings to commence de novo from the inquiry report stage. Though learned single Judge had not given specific directions regarding payment of backwages upon quashing of disciplinary proceedings, the consequences had to follow.

(3.) In support of the appeal, Mr. P. P. Rao, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the true import of Regulation 6(18) has not been considered by the High Court. As no prejudice was caused to the employee by the action taken by the Disciplinary Authority, and there was full compliance with the principles of audi alteram partem. Even if it is conceded for the sake of argument that there was any deficiency in the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, same was abundantly made good by the appellate authority which granted personal hearing to the employee. Post-decisional hearing is permissible and in fact personal hearing was granted though there was no such requirement. No prejudice has been shown.