MANSUKHLAL K BHALAL Vs. BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is filed with a prayer to quash and set aside the order dated 21 st October 1993 passed by the Disciplinary Authority of the respondent-Bank dismissing the petitioner from service and also to set aside the order of the Appellate Authority dated 26/31.3.1994, by which, the order of the Disciplinary Authority came to be confirmed.

(2.) At the outset, the question arises that how far an employee can be permitted to exploit his personal difficulties to invoke sympathy of the employer or the Court, even by stretching the principles of natural justice for quashing and setting aside an order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and confirmed by the Appellate Authority in the backdrop of proved misconduct of will ml insubordination or disobedience of lawful or reasonable order of employer and unauthorized absentism found in the departmental enquiry; alternatively That, persistent defiance, disobedience and indifferences shown by the delinquent to the instructions and directions time and again issued by the Bank to resume duty and to explain the charges - whether required any intervention by this Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by reducing the penalty of dismissal on the ground that the same is disproportionate to the alleged misconduct,which shocks the conscience of the Court by invoking the second part of Wednesbury clause.

(3.) The facts summarized are as under : The petitioner was appointed as Agricultural Assistant on 18th July 1974. That, he was instructed to go on deputation at Turkha Branch of the respondent-Bank from 1.2.1992 for a period of one month only by the order dated 24th January 1992 when he was working as Agricultural Assistant at Krishnanagar Branch. It is the case of the petitioner that, earlier, the father of the petitioner was seriously ill during the month of September 1991 and he was hospitalized and, thereafter he was operated for surgical jaundice, who, later on, expired on 4th December 1991. Even the mother of the petitioner was also not keeping well and she was hospitalized 011 23rd November 1991 when she had undergone an operation. Thereafter, even the petitioner also fell sick and, therefore, he addressed a letter on 30th January 1992 to the Branch Manager of the respondent-Bank requesting extension of sick leave from 1.2.1992 to 15.3.1992. In response thereto, the Bank had communicated to the petitioner that his leave could not be sanctioned since it was not supported by medical certificate and at the time of death of his father and ailment of his mother, the petitioner was sufficiently accommodated by the Bank. The request of the petitioner to extend sick leave and instructions by the Bank to report at Turkha Branch for a short time continued for some time and, ultimately, the respondent-Bank addressed a letter on 7th May 1992 and instructed the petitioner again to report duty at Turkha Branch. Since the petitioner failed to report duty at Turkha Branch for about ten months, a charge-sheet dated 13th November 1992 framing two charges was issued by the respondent-Bank to the petitioner on the ground of gross misconduct of defiance and disobedience as per paras 19.5(3) and 19.7(a) of the first bi partite settlement dated 19th October 1966 for remaining absent without sanctioned or authorised leave. Both the charges read as under: