REKHA KAUSHAL Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks direction to set aside order dated 04.11.2016 passed by reviewing authority and petitioner be absolve of all the charges which have been levelled against her vide chargesheet dated 16.12.2013 and supplementary chargesheet dated 09.07.2014. She further seeks direction thereby directing the respondents to promote her to Senior Management Grade Scale-IV, with effect from the date from which her immediate junior has been promoted in the selection process held in the year 2014 in which the petitioner was also interviewed, along with arrears of pay, after fixation of pay as Chief Manager in Senior Management Grade Scale-IV w.e.f. 2014. She also seeks direction directing the respondents to refund her pay deducted due to punishment vide orders dated 17.09.2015 of the disciplinary authority and further amended by orders dated 04.11.2016 of review authority and direct the respondents to remove petitioner's name from the list of doubtful integrity officers (LODI).

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner joined the respondent bank on 29.07.1986 as clerk-cum-cashier and is presently holding the post of Senior Manager in Middle Management Grade Scale-III w.e.f. 01.09.2010. At the time of filing of the petition, she was posted at Branch Office, Nehru Place, New Delhi, as second person i.e. next to the incumbent incharge of the Senior Management Grade of Scale-IV w.e.f.16.11.2015. The branch office, Moti Bagh, of respondent Bank was under the command of petitioner from Oct. 2010 to 2015. Under her command, the respondent bank branch flourished at record speed and was also awarded as one of the top branches of bank all over. The said branch figured in top 10% overall performing branches of respondent for the first time ever under the command of petitioner in year 2011. The same was duly recognized by respondent vide circular No.MASD/5/2011 dated 16.11.2007. The branch was recognized and rewarded as number one branch in car loan segment for FY 2011-12 vide RAD circular no.28/2012. Moreover, again for FY 2012- 13 branch of petitioner was awarded as number one in same segment.

(3.) Further case of the petitioner is that in the month of Feb., 2013, being in-charge of Moti Nagar Branch, the petitioner detected a planned loan fraud played upon upon the bank and accordingly lodged police complaint with the concerned police station and also informed her seniors about the same. Consequently, several persons were arrested and case against them is pending in Saket Court, New Delhi. The efforts of the petitioner were lauded by some of her seniors but orally. However, instead of lauding her efforts, after elapsing of 10 months of incident, the petitioner was served with a chargesheet dated 16.12.2013 of major vigilance enquiry. The petitioner was shocked to receive the chargesheet but replied to same but an enquiry was started. It was unfair on the part of the respondent bank to appoint an officer subordinate to the petitioner as presenting officer in enquiry against the petitioner. On receiving the reply of petitioner and realizing that charges would not be sufficient to victimise and punish her, a supplementary chargesheet dated 09.07.2014 was served upon her during ongoing enquiry much in contravention of regulations of bank. Moreover, no opportunity to file reply to the same was afforded to the petitioner in violation of regulations governing enquiry and principles of natural justice. Moreover, charges of supplementary chargesheet were made part of the ongoing enquiry. Finally, the petitioner was ordered a penalty of two increments lower for two years in the time scale of pay. The same was challenged in appeal but appeal was dismissed. Thereafter the petitioner preferred a review petition but she was not absolved of charges and only penalty was reduced to one increment lower for one year in the time scale of pay. Moreover, petitioner's name was not removed from list of doubtful integrity officers and hence being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.