DHARAMVIR SHARMA Vs. UNITED COMMERCIAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Primary challenge in this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 28.6.1988, Annexure P.19 whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service.

(2.) In the year 1983, the petitioner was working as Chief Cashier, an officer of Junior Management Grade, in the Branch Office of the respondent- Bank at Budhakhera. As per the case set out in the writ petition, the petitioner proceeded on leave on the ground of sickness w.e.f. 18.11.1983 to 2.12.1983. However, respondent No. 5 who at the relevant time was the Manager in the said bank after making visit to the residence of the petitioner found that the petitioner was not ill. The petitioner, however, after availing leave reported for duties on 3.12.1983 in the Bank along with medical certificate issued by the Civil Hospital, Jind, but he was not allowed to join his duties and was rather directed by respondent No. 5, by letter dated 3.12.1983 to get himself examined from the Chief Medical Officer, Jind (in short 'C.M.O.') as in the opinion of the Manager, the prescription slip issued by the Civil Hospital was not acceptable to him as it was not supported by Medical Certificate of the Senior Medical Officer, Jind. Thus by the said letter dated 3.12.1983, Annexure P.2, the petitioner was advised that after getting himself examined from the C.M.O. Jind, he should also get a fitness certificate from the said medical authority and till he does not do so, he will not be allowed to join his duties. The petitioner thereafter wrote to the Divisional Officer of the respondent-Bank, vide his letter dated 3.12.1983, Annexure P.4 intimating that respondent No. 5 did not permit him to join his duties when he submitted his joining report on 3.12.1983. Since not action was taken by respondent-4, the petitioner made a representation, copy Annexure P.5 to the General Manager-respondent No. 2 bringing the above facts to his notice and further praying that he may be deemed to be on active duty from 3.12.1983 till he is allowed to join his duties, and sick leave applied for by him for the period 18.11.1983 to 2.12.1983 may be granted. Respondent No. 5 again by his letter dated 9.5.1984, Annexure P.6 wrote to the petitioner that since he had not complied with the requirement of producing the medical certificates as directed earlier and had been absenting from duty, he should explain the reasons for his unauthorised leave w.e.f. 3.12.1983, within 10 days from the receipt of the letter failing which disciplinary action would be taken against him in terms of the Regulations of the Bank. Reply dated 18.5.1984, Annexure P.7 submitted by the petitioner to the aforesaid letter was not found to be satisfactory and he again by letter dated 30.5.1984, Annexure P.8, was given another 10 days' time to explain reasons for his absence and was also directed to report for duties. The petitioner, however, did not join his duties. He was thereafter served with a charge- sheet dated 25.6.1984, Annexure P.9 by the Disciplinary Authority whereby it was proposed to hold an enquiry against him under Regulation 6 of United Commercial Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (for short Rs. 1976 Regulations'). The petitioner was also required to submit a written statement of his defence within a period of ten days of the receipt thereof. Petitioner accordingly submitted his reply dated 6.7.1984, Annexure P.10 to the charge-sheet. Thereafter an Inquiry Officer was appointed and on the basis of enquiry report submitted by him, the disciplinary authority by order dated 27.2.1985, Annexure P.11 removed the petitioner from the service of the bank with immediate effect. The petitioner filed appeal against the order of removal and the appellate authority by taking a lenient view converted the punishment of removal of the petitioner from service into withholding of his three next annual increments with cumulative effect, by his order dated 12.6.1985, Annexure P.12. The petitioner thereafter sought permission to file review petition against the appellate order, but the same was declined by letter dated 16.8.1985, Annexure P.13. The petitioner was consequently, by registered letter dated 18.9.1985, Annexure P.14, directed to report for duty to the Manager of Sector 17-B Branch of the bank at Chandigarh. Petitioner, however, did not report for duty and thus was served a notice dated 1.8.1986, Annexure P.15, under the provisions of Regulation 20(1) of United Commercial Bank (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979 (in short Rs. 1979 Regulations') whereby it was clearly stated that despite several notices sent to him directing him to resume duties, he had not turned up to report for duty, it was clear that he was not interested to serve the bank and thus on the expiry of a period of three months from the said notice, he would stand terminated from the service of the bank. The matter, however, did not rest here and the petitioner made a final appeal dated 25.9.1986, Annexure P.16 to the Chairman and Managing Director of the bank. The petitioner was again served with a charge-sheet dated 24.6.1987, Annexure P.17. The Inquiry Officer accordingly submitted his report dated 13.2.1988, Annexure P.18 holding the petitioner guilty of all the charges levelled against him. The disciplinary authority thus on the basis of the inquiry report, by order dated 28.6.1988, Annexure P.19 dismissed the petitioner from service. Thereafter the request made by the petitioner for re-consideration of his case was declined by the bank authorities by letters dated 14.10.1988, Annexure P.20 and 18.1.1989, Annexure P.21. It is in this situation, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order of dismissal from service.

(3.) In the joint written statement filed on behalf of the respondents, broadly, the facts set out in the writ petition were not disputed. However, all that was said to explain the matter was that the petitioner did not comply with various directions viz. to get himself examined from the C.M.O. and producing a fitness certificate from him and nor did he join his duties despite being asked repeatedly and, therefore, he remained absent from duty unauthorisedly. It was further stated that the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet and asked to attend the inquiry and submit his statement of defence, but the petitioner did not opt to appear before the Inquiry Officer and as a matter of fact, he himself chose to boycott the inquiry in writing. As regards the second inquiry as well, it was stated that the Inquiry Officer afforded ample opportunities to the petitioner to appear and defend himself but he without any legal or just cause wilfully failed to appear before the Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Office submitted his report on the basis of evidence/documents produced during the inquiry proceedings and on a consideration thereof, the disciplinary authority validly passed the order of dismissal of the petitioner from service. Allegations of mala fide and personal grudge levelled in the writ petition against respondent No. 5 were specifically denied. As regards the punishment, it was stated that the conduct of the petitioner in having remained absent from duty unauthorisedly and intentionally and wilfully not complying with the instructions/letters issued by the authorities, his dismissal from service was quite justified.