SHEOKAND S S Vs. ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On March 16, 2004, we have passed the following order: "With the consent of the counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned orders are quashed. Detailed reasons to follow." We now proceed to set out the reasons.

(2.) While posted as Senior Manager in the Narwana Branch of the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Bahadurgarh (hereinafter referred to as "the Bank") the petitioner received a show-cause notice dated February 26, 1997 (Annexure P-1). It was alleged that the petitioner had unauthorisedly purchased third party cheques/drafts of huge amount beyond the discretionary powers of lending, without completing pre-sanction formalities. Thereafter, certain details have been narrated about the unauthorised acts allegedly committed by the petitioner. He was called upon to submit his explanation within 15 days of the receipt of the show cause notice (Annexure P-1). The petitioner submitted the reply dated April 12, 1997 (Annexure P-2). The petitioner claims that without considering the reply, the disciplinary authority- respondent No.4, the General Manager (Personnel) of the Bank issued a charge-sheet dated December 1, 1997 (Annexure P-3). One S.P.N. Singh, Commissioner of Departmental enquiries, Central Vigilance Commission, Delhi was appointed as the Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charges levelled against the petitioner. After completion of the evidence adduced by the Presenting Officer as well as the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer directed the petitioner to file written defence brief (written arguments). The petitioner duly filed the written arguments dated April 20, 1999 (Annexure P-5) which were received by the Enquiry Officer on February 26, 1999. The Enquiry Officer submitted the report dated February 26, 1999 (Annexure P-6). It was communicated to the petitioner by letter dated April 17, 1999. The petitioner was directed to make representations/submissions in regard to the findings of the Enquiry Officer within 15 days thereof. The petitioner duly submitted the representation with regard to the findings of the Enquiry Officer through letter dated May 4, 1999 (Annexure P-7). By letter dated June 20, 1999 (Annexure P-8), the petitioner requested the disciplinary authority to make available to him copies of the correspondence/ recommendations meant for second stage advice, and the advice so received or likely to be received from the Chief Vigilance Commission (hereinafter referred to as "CVC"), so that the petitioner is able to effectively make a representation on the recommendations prior to the stage of final disposal under Regulation 7 of the Oriental Bank of Commerce Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1982 Regulations"). The petitioner specifically pointed out that the documents are necessary so that his defence is not jeopardised and that he should not remain unrepresented. The petitioner wanted to ensure that nothing was done at his back, detrimental to the interest of his defence and in breach of rules of natural justice. In support of the submission, the petitioner relied on the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4813 of 1992 (arising out of SLP(C) 10168 of 1991) (State Bank of India and others v. D.C. Aggarwal and another) AIR 1993 SC 1197 : 1993 (1) SCC 13 : 1993-I-LLJ-244. Copy of this letter was sent to respondent No. 5, Chief Vigilance Officer of the Bank. This was necessary as the Chief Vigilance Commission corresponds with the Bank through the Chief Vigilance Officer of the Bank-respondent No. 5. By letter dated August 10, 1999 (Annexure P-9), respondent No. 4 declined to furnish the copies of correspondence exchanged with the CVC. On October 27, 1999 an order of punishment (Annexure P-10) was passed by the Disciplinary Authority under Regulation 4(f) of the aforesaid 1982 Regulations. The punishment imposed was as follows: "Reduction to two stages low in the time scale of pay in MMGS-III with cumulative effect."

(3.) The existing pay of the petitioner was reduced from Rs.9700.00 to Rs. 9200.00. The petitioner complains that on the basis of the aforesaid punishment till date no increment has been released and he is still drawing basic pay of Rs. 9200.00 only. The petitioner filed an appeal on December 10, 1999 (Annexure P-11) under Regulation 17 of the aforesaid 1982 Regulations. By letter dated June 2, 2000 (Annexure P-12), the petitioner was informed that the appeal filed by the petitioner has been considered by the appellate authority and rejected. Aggrieved against the aforesaid decision, the petitioner again wrote a letter on August 12, 2000 (Annexure P-13) to the disciplinary authority. It was requested that a copy of the order passed by the appellate authority be supplied to him so that he is in a position to seek his remedies, according to law. By letter dated November 23, 2000 (Annexure P- 15), the petitioner was sent a copy of the order passed by the appellate authority on June 2, 2000. The appellate authority passed the order rejecting the appeal of the petitioner on June 2, 2000 which reads as under: