PRABUDDHA ROY Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petitioner herein has the impugned order of removal dated 5th December, 1988 and the order of the Appellate Authority dated 17th December, 1988 confirming the order of removal and also the report of the Enquiry Officer which is the basis of passing impugned two aforesaid orders. The fact of the writ petition emerges in sum and substance as follows:- 2.The writ petitioner was serving as a Manager of the erstwhile Hindustan Commercial Bank Limited and he lastly served so in the said capacity till 28th November, 1985. On 28th November, 1985 the writ petitioner was posted at the Netaji Subhas Road Branch of the erstwhile Hindustan Commercial Bank Limited (in short H.C.B. Ltd.) as 'A' Class Branch Manager. The characteristic of describing 'A' Class Branch Manager is that the Officer and/or Branch Manager is given a special status by executing a general power of attorney doing all things necessary on behalf of the Bank. By an order dated 28th November, 1985 being annexure 'A' hereto the petitioner was suspended. It is stated that immediately after issuing the said suspension order by a letter dated 21st December, 1985 being annexure 'B' to the said petition the petitioner was asked to give explanation within 30 days from the date of the said letter as to his dealings and further conduct in his service as a Branch Manager. According to the writ petitioner the said letter dated 21st Dcember, 1985 is a charge sheet and the same is follow up action of the said suspension order. On receipt of the said letter being annexure 'B' the writ petitioner replied to the same and explained his conduct and/or dealings as sought for by the said annexure 'B'. On 2nd April, 1986 on receipt of the said explanation, the writ petitioner states, that he was reinstated in the services but not in the post of the Branch Manager. Fourthermore, by another letter dated 11th August, 1986 the functional allowance of the writ petitioner was denied and he was placed as an ordinary Officer and the deed of 'A' Class Power of Attorney was cancelled and power granted there by the Bank in his favour was also withdrawn by a letter dated 18th December, 1986. According to the writ petitioner, although reinstatement was made but the same was not done to his previous post existing before the suspension order was issued, and further the other benefit and or privilege was also withdrawn. Thus the petitioner's status from the Branch Manager was downgraded to an ordinary officer. Therefore, there was punishment in substance, in pursuance of the said letter asking for explanation dated 21st December, 1985 (according to the petitioner which is a charge sheet), the petitioner accepted such position and continued to function. There after owing to acquisition of the business, assets and properties of the said H.C.B. Ltd. by the present Respondent No. 1, the petitioner's services was not recognised nor accepted initially by the respondent No. 1. Accordingly along with many employees the writ petitioner participated in a proceeding under Article 32 of the Constitution of India before the Supreme Court of India initiated against the respondent No. 1. By the judgment and order dated 18 September 1987 rendered by the apex court the employment of the petitioener stood transferred and/or was accepted by the respondent No. 1. Immediately thereafter the petitioner had been served with the suspension order by a letter dated 11th November, 1987 being annexure 'H' followed by a charge sheet dated 7th December, 1987. Three sets of charges were levelled against the petitioner with statement of imputations enclosed to the said charge sheet. The petitioner replied to the said charges. The respondent No. 1 considering the charges being serious in nature and upon denial of such charges appointed the respondent No. 7 as an Enquiry Officer for holding a domestic enquiry and for submission of the report. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer submitted report and found that the charges numbers I and II could not be proved and the writ petitioner was not guilty of committing misconduct as mentioned in article I and II but he found the writ petitioner is guilty so far the charges of misconduct as mentioned in article III is concerned. The disciplinary authority, viz., respondent No. 5, however, did not agree to the reports submitted by the Enquiry Officer with regard to charge numbers I and II and he came to his own finding and held the petitioner guilty of charges I and II and he accepted the report of fact finding of the Enquiry Officer so far charges of Article III is concerned. After holding the writ petitioner guilty of committing misconduct in respect of all the three charges the disciplinary authority being respondent No. 5 herein imposed punishment upon the writ petitioner of removal from services by the impugned order. The writ petitioner preferred appeal against the aforesaid impugned order of removal to the appellate authority being respondent No. 3. The appellate authority further rejected the appeal and he also came to his own finding and confirmed the impugned order of removal by its order being Annexure 'W'.

(2.) Mr. Swapan Dutta, learned lawyer, appearing for the petitioner, submits that out of the three sets of charges of misconduct, two of them have been found in favour of the petitioner being not guilty by the Enquiry Officer and one of the charges, viz., third charge has been found to have been proved and the petitioner was found to be guilty by the Enquiry Officer. He submits that the charge No. 3 is the identical charge of misconduct levelled against the petitioner previously before the present respondent No. 1 took over the management, control of the erstwhile Hindustan Commercial Bank. He submits that the said previous bank had already punished the petitioner by reducing his rank. In pursuance of the previous charge the petitioner was suspended and ultimately reinstated but he was not given back his post of Branch Manager and also the privilege qua Branch Manager was also taken away by withdrawing special power of attorney which is normally executed and granted in favour of Branch Manager. So, according to Mr. Dutta, since the self same charge has already been ended with the punishment of the petitioner at subsequent stage on the same ground the petitioner cannot be proceeded with nor can be held guilty as the same amounts to double jeopardy.

(3.) The disciplinary/punishing authority have disagreed the findings of the Enquiry Officer of the petitioner not being guilty as regards the charge Nos. 1 & 2 are illegal and based on no evidence. He further submits that no opportunity was given before the disciplinary authority had disagreed with the findigs of the Enquiry Officer affording the petitioner to make a represntation and thus the same violates the principle of natural justice.