GIRDHARI KARAMCHANDANI Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A challenge has been made to the charge sheet dated 9-6-2015 issued by the respondent Bank to the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner conscious of the limitation of a writ court in interfering with a charge sheet issued by an employer to its employee, has however submitted that the charge sheet which has been issued to the petitioner pertaining to his alleged failure to behave properly with the customers, threaten and abuse them and demand unlawful gratification for doing routine banking work to which the customers were entitled, is wholly vague and without material particulars. Owing to the vagueness of the charge the petitioner will be prejudiced in his defence, counsel submitted. It has submitted that aside of vagueness, the charge sheet dated 9-6-2015 is also vitiated for being malafide, inasmuch as it has been issued after a period of about one year subsequent to the alleged incident, and after this court in SBCWP No.6366/2015 vide interim order dated 28-5-2015 stayed the petitioner's transfer from Beawar to Kekri inter alia on the ground that the transfer was arbitrarily founded upon an alleged pending enquiry when no such departmental enquiry was in fact pending. It has been submitted that the charge sheet is a blow back to the interim order dated 28-5-2015, and the petitioner has been belatedly foisted with the charge sheet in issue despite the fact that the petitioner is to retire in October, 2015, just three months away. Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Transport Commissioner Madras Vs. A. Radha Krishna Moorthy, 1995 1 SCC 332, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a situation, similar to one at case at hand, finding the charge sheet vague, quashed the charge sheet and did not thereafter think it proper to allow the employer to further proceed with the disciplinary proceedings as the employee in the said case was to retire a mere 7-8 months on. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the case of petitioner is on a better footing than the case of the employee in Transport commissioner Madras as the petitioner, facing a belated and vague charge sheet, is to retire just three months later.

(2.) Heard. Considered.

(3.) Grounds for interference by a writ court with the charge sheet issued by an employer to its employee are extremely limited. Vagueness of the charges is indeed a ground. Yet the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Transport Commissioner Madras visualises the vagueness of the charges being rectified by the charges being subsequently particularised. Reverting to the case at hand, it is one where serious charges have been levelled against the petitioner, a Special Assistant with the respondent Bank, and the petitioner has been alleged to have misbehaved with customers, abused and threatened them and also demanded unlawful gratification for doing routine banking work as a condition of their engaging the Bank's service. It is no doubt true that the charge sheet has been issued without desirable particulars, yet it cannot be overemphasised that the reputation of a bank and its goodwill in the public is quite central to its business in the present increasingly competitive environment. Even though, the charge sheet does not refer to the name of customer with whom the petitioner is alleged to have misbehaved, threatened, or otherwise abused or demanded unlawful gratification, yet Mr. Samdaria has fairly admitted that name of customer to which reference has been made in the charge sheet is well known also to the petitioner as it is to the Bank.