NATVERBHAI S MAKWANA Vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a departmental inquiry held against a bank employee he was chargesheeted for certain misconduct. Sufficient details regarding the mis-conduct alleged was not given in the chargesheet. He confessed and admitted something which did not form part of the charge. Without there being any evidence or proof of the misconduct alleged he has been convicted and punished solely on the basis of his confession. Can this order imposing punishment be sustained ? This in short is the question which awaits answer.

(2.) The petitioner is an employee of the respondent which is a nationalised bank. He is serving as a clerk-cum-cashier at Amreli Branch of the Bank. He was selected as a candidate for induction course for a period commencing from June 18 1982 to July 6 1982 When the induction course was going on the petitioner was found to be irregular in his attendance and therefore he was relieved from the training course before the expiry of the training period. He was served with a memo dated July 14 1982 wherein it was inter a stated that after the petitioner was relieved from training centre he (petitioner) approached Shri R. J. Arya of Bank of Baroda Dhanlaxmi Branch Ahmedabad and made certain unwarranted complaints against Shri J. K. Shah Acting-in-charge of the Staff training Centre Ahmedabad and in turn Shri Arya threatened Shri J. K. Shah over telephone to withdraw the relieving memorandum of Shri Makwana (the petitioner) otherwise he would get Shri Shah transferred out from Ahmedabad and he would also cut of his hands. The petitioner was required to give written explanation within a period of seven days from the date of Misconduct proved

(3.) Intimidation to cause physical harm to his superior. The above punishment will have consecutive effect and as such in all his next four increments will be stopped with cumulative effect which will have effect of postponing all his future increments by four years.