KALPANA KHATU Vs. CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who is an employee with the Canara Bank, has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer that Annexure P-6 which are the proceedings before the Disciplinary Authority, annexure P-7, the order passed by the Deputy general Manager, imposing punishment of reduction to a lower stage in the scale of pay by one stage for a period of one year without cumulative effect and the order passed in appeal annexure P-9, dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner, be quashed and set aside.

(2.) BRIEF facts, necessary for consideration are that the petitioner, while working as a clerk in the Canara Bank, Shimla Branch, was charge sheeted on the allegations that on November 11, 1999 when she was entrusted with the duties as a Cashier in the Branch, she made unwarranted/derogatory remarks against the complainant Raju Lakara, who was also working as a clerk in the Bank. The imputation was that she has used the words "sabhi scheduled caste aise he hole hai kaya?' The charge sheet states that by this act she has hurt the sentiments and feelings of a fellow employee and flouted the discipline of the bank. She was also accused of disorderly behaviour and charged that she had committed misconduct within the meaning of Chapter XI regulation (3) (k) of the Canara Bank Service code. The charge sheet further states:

(3.) A detailed reply Annexure P-3 was filed by the petitioner to the charges leveled against her raising a number of objections. According to her, on the day of incident at around 12 noon, the complainant Raju Lakara had approached her for the exchange of soiled currency notes, which she had exchanged. Immediately thereafter he again approached her with some other soiled currency notes which he wanted to exchange. The petitioner was, perhaps irritated and told him not to bother her time and again. On this, the complainant flared up and he argued with her loudly and used unparliamentary and derogatory words against her in front of the customers present in the bank. According to her, one Shyam Khanna, amongst others, who was the Managing Partner of Shimla Watch Company, Shimla was also present at the relevant time. The gist of her reply was that although the complainant had shouted at her and addressed her in a language which could not be used against a women, such words were addressed to her in front of the customers and the staff and no action was taken against the complainant. She also submitted that there were other customers, namely, Ashok Khanna and shyam Khanna and one another person. Ashok khanna was not allowed to be examined in her defence. The Enquiry Officer submitted his findings vide Annexure P-4 which report is dated March 7, 2000. After considering the evidence, he holds that the words attributed to the petitioner were used by her. He also holds that in Exhibit DEX-1 submitted by the petitioner, she expressed her regret for the incident stating that she never intended to hurt anybody's feeling. The evidence which was led, by the petitioner was brushed aside by the enquiry Officer mainly on the ground that there was no documentary evidence to prove the presence of Shyam Khanna on the day of the occurrence. The petitioner was accordingly held guilty of misconduct. The Report concludes: