NM MANAKTALA Vs. UCO BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant writ petition, petitioner has assailed the orders dated 20.12.1990 and 14.10.1991 by which petitioner has been removed and his appeal has been rejected (Annexures P6 and P8 respectively).

(2.) The petitioner while working as an Assistant Manager in the respondent-Bank was subjected to disciplinary proceedings. On 28.09.1989 he was charge-sheeted for remaining unauthorized absent for various period under Regulation 6 of UCO Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (for short 'Regulations, 1976'). Petitioner had filed his reply to the charge-memo merely denying the alleged charge on 15.11.1989. Thereafter the respondents proceeded to hold an inquiry against the petitioner for remaining unauthorized absent for various period by appointing Inquiring Officer on 27.06.1990. The inquiring officer submitted his report to the disciplinary authority. Disciplinary authority issued a show cause notice to the petitioner asking his explanation with proposed punishment on 19.07.1990 for which petitioner had submitted his reply on 04.08.1990. The disciplinary authority proceeded to impose the penalty of removal from service on 20.12.1990. Aggrieved by the order of removal from service petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority affirmed the decision of the disciplinary authority on 14.10.1991. Thereafter petitioner filed a revision petition. It was not decided by the revisional authority having regard to the language employed in Regulation No. 18 to the extent that revisional authority has suo moto power to look into the appellate authority's order within a period of 6 months. Hence the petitioner's revision petition was not entertained and no order to that effect has been passed. Hence, the present petition .

(3.) Petitioner submitted that his absence for various period stated in the charge-memo was beyond his control as for each and every unauthorized absence he has submitted his explanation like father in law's death, wife was suffering from illnesses etc. It was further submitted that disciplinary authority failed to furnish list of documents, list of witnesses along with the charge-sheet which is in violation of Regulation 6 to the extent that if disciplinary authority issue charge-sheet in that event he is bound to furnish list of documents and list of witnesses. In support of this contention petitioner relied on decision reported in 2016(4) SCT 77 titled as Union of India and others v. Sushil Kumar Vashisht and another. It was further contended that the disciplinary authority failed to furnish copy of the inquiring officer's report which is mandate under Regulation 7(ii). In support of the said contention learned counsel for the petitioner relied on two decisions namely Union of India and others v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan reported in (1991) 1 SCC 588 and Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v. B.Karunakar reported in 1994 Supp(2) SCC 391. It was further contended that the disciplinary authority relied on past records while imposing the penalty of removal from service. In support of this contention, he relied on judgment titled as Krushnakant B. Parmar v. Union of India and another (Civil Appeal No.2106 of 2012). It was submitted that having regard to the alleged charges of remaining unauthorized absent imposition of penalty of removal from service would be too harsh in this regard, he has relied on Supreme Court decision namely B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India and others reported in 1995 SCC(6)749. Thus, petitioner's contentions are that there are violation of various provisions of Regulations, 1976.