MANOJ KUMAR DAS Vs. UNITED BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order of the disciplinary authority imposing on him the punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect, and the order of the appellate authority rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order of punishment of the disciplinary authority.

(2.) The facts briefly are that the petitioner is an employee of the United Bank of India. By an order dated 29.2.88, the Chief Manager of Dibrugarh Branch, who is the disciplinary authority of the petitioner, initiated a disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner for alleged acts of gross misconduct committed by him while working as Typist-cum-Clerk in the Dibrugarh Branch of United Bank of India and suspended him from service. Thereafter, by a letter dated 5.4.88, the petitioner was served with the charges against him and was asked to submit his written explanation within 7 days from the date of receipt of the said letter. The petitioner submitted his written explanation to the Chief Manager, United Bank of India , Dibrugarh Branch in his letter dated 11.4.88. In the meanwhile , for the very same acts of the petitioner a prosecution was lodged against the petitioner for having committed offences under Sections 477-A/381, I.P.C. in G.R. Case No. 795/87 and by judgment dated 12.4.90 the Judicial Magistrate , 1st Class, Dibrugarh acquitted the petitioner of the charges after trial. In the parallel disciplinary proceedings which were initiated against the petitioner however the enquiry officer submitted a report with a finding that some of the charges levelled against the petitioner in the said disciplinary proceedings had been proved and established beyond doubt. The disciplinary authority then issued a letter dated 25th August , 1990 to the petitioner stating therein that he agreed with the findings of the enquiry officer that the charge against the petitioner of having pasted the ledger folios bearingNos. 104 to 107, 154 & 155, 174 &175, 212 & 213 of S/B ledger No. 5 containing transactions during the period from October, 1980 to December, 1985 and during September, 1986, had been proved and established beyond doubt. In the said letter dated 25th August , 1990, the disciplinary authority further stated that considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the gravity of misconduct and the past records of the petitioner, it had been tentatively decided to impose on him punishment of stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect. In the said letter dated 25.8.90, however, the disciplinary authority stated that before taking final decision with regard to the punishment the petitioner was given an opportunity of being heard personally in terms of Clause 19.12 of the Bipartite Settlement dated 19.10.66 on the nature of the proposed punishment on 6th September, 1990 and along with the said letter a copy of the report of the enquiry was enclosed. After receipt of the said letter dated 25.8.90, it appears that the petitioner did not appear before the disciplinary authority on 6.9.90 but submitted a written submission on 3.9.90 and after going through the written submission the disciplinary authority by his order dated 7.9.90 confirmed the punishment of stoppage of 3 increments with cumulative effect against the petitioner. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Assistant General Manager, United Bank of India, which was disposed of by order dated 17th May, 1990 by the Deputy General Manager (IBR & HK) and the Appellate Authority.

(3.) Mr. G.P. Bhowmick, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and the criminal prosecution were based on the same set of facts and that since the petitioner had been acquitted in the criminal case by judgment dated 12.4.90 delivered by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dibrugarh, in G.R. Case No. 795/87, this Court ought to quash the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner including the order of penalty passed by the disciplinary authority and confirmed by the appellate authority. Mr. S. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand , argued that a reading of the judgment passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Dibrugarh in the said GR Case would show that the petitioner had been acquitted as the petitioner had not been able to produce the witnesses to establish the charges against him under Sections 477A/3 81, IPC, but the enquiry report in the disciplinary proceeding would clearly show that the charges of misconduct against the petitioner had been established beyond doubt and, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court should not quash the disciplinary proceedings and the order of penalty passed against the petitioner on the ground that the criminal proceeding against the petitioner on the same set of facts have ended in acquittal.