SHRI RAM Vs. BANK OF BARODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against an order dated November 14, 1990 (Anncxure-1) passed by respondent No. 4, the disciplinary authority, dismissing the petitioner from service, and order dated September 30, 1991 (Annexure 2) passed by the appellate authority, the respondent No. 2 confirming the same in appeal.

(2.) The petitioner, who was holding the post of Junior Management Officer, Scale I, in the Nichi Bagh Branch, of the Bank of Baroda at Varanasi (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) on the date of his dismissal, was, on February 28, 1986 while posted as Manager, Rafi Ganj Branch, District Faizabad of the Bank, suspended by an order of the Deputy General Manager, U.P. Zone of the Bank at Lucknow. A charge-sheet along with the statement of allegations and memo dated May 5, 1987, Annexures 6/6-Aand 6-B to the petition, were subsequently served on the petitioner by the Deputy General Manager. The 8 Items of charges based on 39 allegations inter alia being that he failed to take steps to ensure and protect the interest of the Bank, did not perform his duties with devotion, misused his positions, acquired assets disproportionate to his known sources of income, displayed lack of integrity, and acted in a manner so as to cause wrongful gain to selected borrowers, with corresponding loss to the Government and the Bank. The petitioner submitted his statement of defence in response to the memorandum, whereupon, the Deputy General Manager dropped 19 of the allegations and in respect of the rest of the allegations appointed Senior Manager, Zonal Office, as Enquiry Officer under Regulation 5(2) of the Bank of Baroda Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations). The petitioner's suspension was subsequently set aside by the Deputy General Manager on March 7, 1988 and he was posted to Varanasi. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply in the enquiry, on conclusion whereof, the Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report dated August 24, 1990 (Annexure-10) which, for the first time, was served on the petitioner along with the dismissal order. The dismissal order, it is alleged, is bad and unsustainable in law on account of the fact that the disciplinary authority initiating the proceedings and appointing the Enquiry Officer was the Deputy General Manager, while the one who passed the termination order was Assistant General Manager. Although for an officer in the grade of the petitioner, both, Deputy General Manager and the Assistant General Manager, have been indicated as the disciplinary authority, the Deputy General Manager being an authority superior in rank to Assistant General Manager, in respect of proceedings initiated by the Deputy General Manager, the Assistant General Manager, could not pass the dismissal order, which, consequently is without jurisdiction. The order of punishment is also bad on account of breach of principlesof natural justice due to non-supply of the report of the enquiry officer, which right is available to the petitioner even after the amendment of Article 311 of the Constitution by the 42nd Amendment. The petitioner challenged the dismissal order by filing a writ petition in this Court, wherein due to lack of legal advice he did not take these pleas. The petition was dismissed vide judgment dated December 11, 1990of this Court (Annexure '2') on the ground of alternative remedy of departmental appeal. The petitioner thereafter preferred an appeal before the General Manager who rejected the same by order dated September 10, 1991. Besides the above mentioned two grounds, the impugned order of punishment is also illegal and unsustainable for the reason that the findings against the petitioner were based on unsustainable materials and were of technical and trivial nature, there was no allegation that any loss was caused to the Bank. The amounts involved in the disbursal of the loan were not very heavy, the disciplinary authority chose to differ from the findings of the Enquiry Officer on absolutely untenable grounds, and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in that regard, or before imposing the penalty. Accordingly, the impugned order of punishment as well as the appellate order is unsustainable and liable to be quashed and the petitioner entitled to be reinstated to his post.

(3.) The petition has been contested by the respondents who have pleaded in their counter affidavit that the enquiry into the charges against the petitioner was conducted absolutely in accordance with rules and principles of natural justice and fair play.The enquiry report was then submitted to the competent disciplinary authority who on a consideration thereof passed the impugned order against the petitioner and communicated the same as required under Regulation 9 along with a copy of the report of enquiry. The petitioner thereafter availed the appellate remedy under Section 17 and the appeal was dismissed after full consideration and application of mind. No breach of principles of natural justice was involved as the rule specifically stated about delivering copy of the enquiry report along with the final order, which was done. It was not necessary for the disciplinary authority to give any further opportunity of hearing to the petitioner nor was he entitled to any opportunity to show cause against the punishment before it was awarded. In accordance with the circular dated July 20, 1983 issued by the Central Office of the Bank, for the purposes of the petitioner's case the disciplinary authority is Deputy General Manager or Assistant General Manager. At the time the disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioner the Zonal Head of Lucknow was Deputy General Manager but when the final orders were passed the Zonal Head was the Assistant General Manager. Both, having been authorised and declared as competent to act as disciplinary authority for the officers of the grade of the petitioner, in the regulations there is no lack of jurisdiction in passing the impugned order. The punishment awarded, it is alleged, is fully commensurate with the gravity of the charges of misconduct; established against the petitioner.