SHASHI BALA MEENA Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:-

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that during the entire service, the petitioner was transferred for 24 times and she joined the transferred places obeying the order/command issued by higher authorities. Counsel submits that during the service tenure of petitioner, she was granted three promotions and her services remained unblemished and during her service tenure, no penalty was imposed against the petitioner. Counsel submits that vide order dtd. 19/4/2014, the petitioner was transferred from Jaipur Branch to Alwar Branch and the petitioner was supposed to join at the transferred place on or before 29/4/2014. Counsel submits that due to her family circumstances, the petitioner could not join and she requested the authorities to retain her at Jaipur Branch. Counsel submits that when the request of petitioner was not considered, an application was submitted for the grant of privilege leave on medical grounds. Counsel submits that without considering the application, her relieving order was passed on 29/4/2014 with directions to join immediately and joining leave are to be availed thereafter. Counsel submits that whenever relieving order is passed, some joining time is granted and the instant case is peculiar one, where directions have been issued to join immediately and avail the leave after joining. Counsel submits that the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet on 11/8/2014 and the enquiry commenced against the petitioner on 14/11/2014. Prior to the commencement of enquiry, the petitioner joined the transferred place on 1/11/2014. Counsel submits that the enquiry was completed in hasty manner within two days even after expiry of bank hours and the same continued till 8:45 PM on 15/11/2014. Counsel submits that the petitioner submitted reply to the enquiry report on 15/1/2015 and on the same day, the higher officials passed the impugned order without even perusing the reply submitted by the petitioner, which amounts to nonapplication of mind and it appears that they were pre-determined to pass the impugned order against the petitioner. Counsel submits that proper opportunity was not provided to the petitioner to produce her defence and the enquiry was completed in a hasty manner. Hence the total enquiry is quite unfair. Counsel submits that the total period of absence of the petitioner was hardly six months and looking to such period, the order impugned has been passed on a higher side and the same is quite disproportionate. Counsel submits that various leaves were lying unavailed in the Privilege Leave Account of the petitioner and the petitioner was entitled to claim her Privilege Leave, but without granting the Privilege Leave, order impugned has been passed against the petitioner. Counsel submits that the enquiry has been conducted in a malicious manner with ulterior object to compulsorily retire the petitioner from service. Counsel submits that the petitioner wanted to examine two witnesses, namely Mr. N.L. Meena and Mr. Ashok Meena, but the respondents refused to examine these witnesses on a vague ground that these witnesses are not related to the charges, however, for defence, examination of these witnesses was necessary to prove the case of petitioner. In support of her contentions, she has placed reliance on the following judgments :-

(3.) Per contra, counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments raised by the counsel for petitioner and submitted that the petitioner has alternative efficacious remedy of filing Review under Regulation 18 of the United Bank of India Officer Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (for short 'the Regulations of 1976'). Counsel submits that the petitioner was transferred on promotion as Branch Head at Alwar and she was supposed to join within the time stipulated, but the petitioner has failed to join the transferred place and remained on willful absence for a period of six months in an unauthorized manner. Counsel submits that the petitioner had put pressure on the higher authorities to cancel her transfer order and also lodged a false FIR bearing no. 397/2014 with Jyoti Nagar Police Station, Jaipur against the officials under Ss. 3(1)(x) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, which resulted in Negative Final Report. Counsel submits that the witnesses namely, Mr. N.L. Meena and Mr. Ashok Meena were not relevant for the purposes of the charges, hence the petitioner was not allowed to examine these witnesses. Counsel submits that the medical certificate relied upon, was not valid as the same was issued by a private medical practitioner. Counsel submits that no medical certificate / document of any Government Hospital was produced to indicate the physical / medical condition of the petitioner. Counsel submits that Privilege Leaves cannot be claimed by an employee as a matter of right. Privilege Leaves are always granted as per the rules and regulations. Counsel submits that the enquiry was not conducted in hasty manner and the same was just and fair. Counsel submits that the scope of judicial review is limited as it has been held by Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court on several occasions that the scope of judicial review of an order of Compulsory Retirement is passed on subjective satisfaction of the employer and the scope of interference is narrow and restricted. Counsel submits that correct procedure was followed before passing the order impugned. Hence, there is no illegality in the order impugned and, therefore, this petition is liable to be dismissed. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the following judgments :-