SHIV DATT SHARMA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHIV Datt Sharma, petitioner claims to have been appointed as a clerk in the Bank of Patiala in the grade of Rs. 40-4-60/5-90 on 18-6-1948. He was confirmed on 19-12-1948 and later on promoted to the higher grade of Senior Assistant with effect from 1-1-1953. Since his promotion he had also been getting his grade increments with the previous approval of the Managing Director of the Bank, the last grade increment having been given to him in October, 1957. Towards the close of the year 1956, the employees of the Bank formed a Union, which was duly registered under the Indian Trade General Secretary in January, 1957. In his capacity as such, the petitioner on various occasions issued a number of letters, circulars and press statements in regard to the affairs of the Bank and demanded better terms of service for the Bank and demanded better terms of service for the Bank employees. Representations were also submitted to the Punjab Government in which irregularities and mismanagement in the affairs of the Bank were brought to the notice of the Government. In September, 1957, there was a general strike by the employees of the Bank and the petitioner and the President of the Union went on hunger strike. Ultimately there was a compromise between the Management and the employees' Union with the result that on 12-10-1957, a circular was issued by the Bank to the effect that no action would be taken against the employees who went on strike or who resorted to hunger strike.

(2.) ON 20-5-1958, however, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet in which all the charges related to the petitioner's conduct as the General Secretary of the Union relating to the period prior to October, 1957, when the last increment was given to the petitioner. Simultaneously, the petitioner was placed under suspension by an order of the Managing Director of the Bank, respondent No. 2. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the charge-sheet by two communications, but (respondent No. 2) completely ignored them and ordered an enquiry to be held by Shri J. S. Malhotra, (respondent No. 4 in this Court) one of his subordinate. On 21-7-1958, the petitioner addressed a letter to the Enquiry Officer pointing out that the Managing Director, respondent No. 2, who has framed the charges and was at the helm of affairs of the Bank, had a personal bias against the petitioner. In the circumstances, a demand was made for an enquiry by an independent authority or by an officer under the Industrial Disputes Act. On 12-8-1958, further objections were raised by the petitioner in respect of the validity of the Bank of Patiala (Staff) Rules, 1954, under which the contemplated enquiry was to be held. On 29-10-1958, the petitioner's counsel stated to the Enquiry Officer that the latter would be required to appear as a witness in the case and that, therefore, he should not act as an Enquiry Officer. This request was disallowed and the enquiry was ordered to be proceeded with. In November, 1958, the petitioner made a request for summoning some records for the purpose of showing that the Managing Director, while acting as an official liquidator had got credited that income to his personal account. This prayer was also disallowed by the Enquiry Officer. On 12-11-1958, the petitioner repeated his request to the Enquiry Officer stating that the evidence of the latter was of great importance and that he was not entitled to enquire into the matter and be both the Judge and a witness. This prayer was also disallowed.

(3.) THE petition further proceeds, and states that the Enquiry Officer recorded the statements of seven witnesses for the Bank during the course of the enquiry and that all the witnesses so examined being under the Managing Director of the Bank, were deeply interested against the petitioner. Request for summoning certain documents and files from the Bank for cross-examination and confronting the Bank witnesses was also disallowed by the Enquiry Officer. On 18-11-1958, the petitioner also wrote to the Managing Director complaining that the enquiry was not being conducted in an impartial and fair manner inasmuch as the Law Superintendent of the Bank was exercising his influence on the Enquiry Officer at every stage. On 4-1-1959, the petitioner submitted a list of 125 defence witnesses with their full particulars, but Enquiry Officer, by means of his order dated 9-1-1959, selected only eight persons out of the list in an arbitrary manner and further directed that even those witnesses should be produced by the petitioner on his own responsibility and expense because the Officer was disinclined to issue summonses for them. Almost all the eight wittiness, according to the petitioner, were Bank employees and it was, therefore, impossible for him to produce them himself. This direction by the Enquiry Officer has been described by the petitioner as tantamount to denying the right of defence. A detailed letter of protest was submitted by the petitioner on 11-1-1959 to the Enquiry Officer with copies to the Managing Director and the Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Bank, praying for a full opportunity to examine his defence witnesses. This prayer was also disallowed by the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner prayed on 15-1-1959 for being permitted to examine the other witnesses at his own expense but this request was also arbitrarily rejected. On 23-1-1959, the petitioner submitted a revised list and prayed that at least 16 witnesses out of the said list should be summoned and their evidence recorded. In this list, the relevancy of the statements of the witness sought to be produced was explained but the Enquiry Officer rejected even this application.