B.R.SHARMA Vs. SYNDICATE BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner who was an employee of the respondent No.1 bank impugns the orders which have been passed by the departmental authorities; the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority; whereby petitioner has been imposed with the punishment of reduction of basic pay by three stages in the time scale of pay.

(2.) THE charge against the petitioner was that on 12.8.1993 at about 4.30 P.M. he with two other officials, namely Sh. M.K. Jain and Sh. Ajit Singh went to the DGM Secretariat of Zonal Office, Delhi and send a slip seeking appointment with the DGM. The attender of DGM took the said slip to the DGM and came back with the said slip and conveyed to the petitioner the DGM's inability to give him appointment. Petitioner is then said to have insisted that he will wait to meet the DGM to which the attender expressed his inability to do so since the DGM had already conveyed his decision of not giving the appointment on that date. In the chargesheet, it is stated that the petitioner thereafter waited alongwith two other officials and he was heard telling "I will see how the DGM will go out without giving me appointment. I will gherao him". The further case of the management is that when DGM came out of his cabin at 6.00 P.M. the petitioner stood in front of him and stated that he wanted to discuss the matter with the DGM to which the DGM said that he was leaving urgently and no appointment was given to the petitioner. Petitioner is said to have found raising his voice in a high pitch of tone and shouted at the DGM saying that "I will see how you will go, I have taken appointment from your secretariat". To this DGM said that no appointment was given and the petitioner reacted in an aggressive manner and stated that he should be given appointment now. DGM therefore told petitioner to come at 4.00 P.M. tomorrow. Petitioner is therefore stated to be guilty of creating a scene and spoiling the office discipline.

(3.) BEFORE I refer to the arguments urged on behalf of the petitioner, it would be necessary to reiterate that in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed challenging the orders of the departmental authorities, this Court does not sit as an Appellate Court and re apprise the findings and conclusions of the departmental authorities. This Court only interferes if there is violation of principles of natural justice or perversity or violation of any rules/law. If there is no perversity or violation of principles of natural justice or violation of rules/law, this Court does not interfere.