SHUSHIL KUMAR SEHGAL Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEF facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner on February 27, 1996. He was directed to file reply to the charge-sheet within a period of 15 days. He made a representation to the Deputy General Manager (Disciplinary authority) on March 21, 1996 brining to his notice that the criminal case on the same facts was pending in the Court of the Chief Judicial magistrate, Mandi in a case titled as State v. G. R. Bhatia and the present proceedings be deferred. The request made by the petitioner was turned down and he was granted 20 days further time to file the reply to the charge-sheet. He again brought to the notice of the disciplinary authority that till the pendency of the criminal case pending in the Court of the chief Judicial Magistrate, Mandi the disciplinary proceedings be deferred vide communication dated June 27, 1996. The disciplinary Authority appointed Sh. P. S. Saluja, senior Manager as Inquiry Officer vide order dated June 27, 1996. The Presenting officer sent a communication to the Inquiry officer on July 12, 1996 giving therein the details of the documents the Department/bank intended to rely upon. The petitioner did not plead guilty to the charges levelled against him. The Inquiry Officer asked the Presenting officer on October 30, 1996 has he brought the documents as per M-1. The Presenting Officer informed the Inquiry Officer that he had brought the documents at serial No. 1 to 4, but he could not bring the documents as per serial no. 5 and 6 since these were not supplied by the court. He sought 20 days time to produce the copies of the documents. The petitioner informed the Inquiry Officer to supply the attested copies of 29 documents mentioned in his representation dated September 11, 1997. He was allowed 2 days time to inspect the documents as per the proceedings dated december 16, 1997. A query was put to the presenting Officer by the Inquiry Officer on april 24, 1998 whether he had collected the documents of the defendants or not. The presenting officer informed the Inquiry Officer that he had collected all the documents except the management's document dated April 12, 1998 since the Court denied to supply the same. He further informed that all the documents except Sr. No. 14 and 16 of D-3 have been procured by him and two copies of each after photostat will be supplied to him shortly. The proceedings were adjourned to May 28, 1998. The petitioner reiterated his request for the supply of the documents on May 11, 1998. He again made a representation to the Inquiry officer on May 23, 1998 bringing to his notice that the documents at serial Nos. 15, 24 and 25 were most vital for his defence which he had inadvertently agreed to drop. He sought the following documents vide representation dated May 23, 1998:

(2.) A query was reiterated by the Inquiry officer to the Presenting Officer why the documents at serial No. 5 and 6 and M-1 have not been produced in the proceedings dated may 28, 1998. The Presenting Officer informed the Inquiry Officer on May 28, 1998 that the documents at Sr. No. 5 and 6 could not be supplied and these documents be deleted, however, true copies of documents at Sr. No. 6 of M-1 were tendered. He further informed the inquiry Officer that the documents at serial No. 1,3 and 4 were to be supplied by the charged officer and he has also supplied copies at Sr. No. 2,5,7,8 9, 10, 11 (copy of complaint supplied and copy of FIR) 12, 13, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 27, 28 and 29 and the documents at Sr. No. 14, 16, 23 and 26 could not be supplied being not traceable and 26 there being no such order. The presenting Officer informed the parties that all the documents i. e. management side and that of the charged officer have been supplied to the inquiry Officer and was the petitioner ready to inspect the same. He informed the Inquiry officer that he will inspect the documents mentioned in letter dated May 23, 1998. He was proceeded ex parte in the proceedings dated may 28, 1998. The ground mentioned for proceeding ex parte against the petitioner was that he was not cooperating. Thereafter the proceedings were heid on May 29, 1998, May 30, 1998, June 16, 1998, June 17, 1998 and June 18, 1998. The Inquiry Officer completed the inquiry and submitted the report to the disciplinary authority. The petitioner was called upon vide letter dated July 14, 1998 to make his submissions on the inquiry report within 15 days. The petitioner made detailed submissions to the inquiry report on July 30, 1998. The disciplinary Authority imposed a major penalty of reduction of salary by three stages in the time scale of pay in which he was placed for a period of one year with further direction that he will not earn increments of pay during the period of such reduction and the same shall have the effect of postponing future increments of his pay as specified under Regulation 4 (f) of the Punjab National Bank Officer Employees (Danda) Regulations, 1977. This penalty was imposed vide order dated October 9, 1998. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the imposition of penalty to the appellate authority on November 21, 1998. The same was rejected by the appellate authority on April 1, 1999.

(3.) MR. Ajay Mohan Goel, advocate has strenuously argued that the inquiry has not been held against his client as per the provisions of the Punjab National Bank Officer Employees (Danda) Regulations, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Regulations' for brevity sake ). He contended that the detailed procedure stipulated in these Regulations has not been complied with. According to him, the procedure prescribed is mandatory. He further contended that there is violation of the principles of natural justice since his client has not been supplied with the documents relied upon by the management during the course of the inquiry proceedings. He further contended that the documents in fact were required to be supplied by the Disciplinary Authority to the Inquiry officer and thereafter the same were to be supplied to his client by the Inquiry Officer. In other words, his submission is that the documents instead of being supplied to his client by the Inquiry Officer were produced before the Inquiry Officer by the Presenting officer. He further contended that the documents sought for by the petitioner were to be supplied at the initial stage to prepare his defence and few of the documents which had been supplied to his client in piecemeal did not comply with the mandatory requirement of supplying the documents to be relied upon by the management at the threshold. He further contended that the list of witnesses was also required to be supplied by the Inquiry Officer at the initial stage. He also contended that his client could not be proceeded ex parte without there being any cogent or tangible reason assigned by the Inquiry Officer. According to him, his client had been impressing upon the inquiry Officer to comply with the mandatory provisions of the Regulations and to supply him the necessary documents and permit him to be defended by a competent person. He lastly contended that the appellate order is a just summary of the order whereby the penalty has been imposed upon his client. He elaborated his submission by submitting that the Appellate authority was required to consider all the grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal, other material and the Appellate Authority could not just summarize the order of penalty while deciding the appeal. Mr. Ajay Mohan goel has also placed strong reliance on annexure P-41, more particularly, paras 5, 6, 7 and 12 therein.