SATYADEO KUMAR SON OF RAJVANSHI RAM, RESIDENT OF QR. NO.B/423, SECTOR Vs. STATE BANK OF PATIALA THROUGH ITS DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER, ZONAL OFFICE, SECOND FLOOR, N.B.C.C. PLACE, OPPOSITE SAI MANDIR, BHISM PITAMAH MARG, LODI ROAD, P.O. AND P.S. LODI ROAD, NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter-alia prayed for quashing of the letter dated 23.07.2009 issued by respondent no.2 relating to infliction the penalty of removal from services with post retiral benefits, in terms of para-6 Clause (b) of memorandum of settlement on disciplinary action and procedure thereof for workmen signed between Indian Banking Association and Unions of Workmen on 10th April, 2002, and for quashing of the order dated 23.11.2009 passed by respondent no.1 rejecting the appeal of the petitioner vide Annexure-7 to the writ petition, and for direction to the respondents to reinstate the petitioner on the post of Single Window Operator (SWO) with all consequential benefits.

(2.) Bereft of unnecessary details, the brief facts as disclosed in the writ application, are that petitioner while continuing service as Single Window Operator at Patna Branch, some financial irregularities were alleged to have been committed by him. On 30.12.2008, the petitioner received a letter with regard to fictitious entries in his account and was advised to explain the reason for withdrawing of Rs.1,93,500.00 from the account holder mentioned in the said letter and he was asked to submit his reply. The petitioner submitted his reply immediately, and thereafter the petitioner voluntarily deposited the amount which was withdrawn by him. The respondents authorities decided to frame charges against the petitioner and accordingly charges were served on the petitioner, and the petitioner submitted his reply explaining the compelling circumstances under which the petitioner committed the alleged irregularities. Subsequently, a show cause dated 26.06.2009 was served on the petitioner imposing proper penalty of dismissal from services. In the proceeding, the inquiry officer vide its report dated 30.04.2009 found the petitioner guilty of charges because of his admission of charges voluntarily and without any undue influence or coercion. The disciplinary authority on the basis of finding of the inquiry officer issued the show cause to petitioner dated 26.06.2009 to which the petitioner submitted his reply on 06.07.2009 on the basis of findings of the inquiry officer. The disciplinary authority passed an order vide letter dated 23.07.2009 whereby the said authorities decided to inflict the penalty of removal from services with superannuation benefits i.e. pension and provident fund and gratuity. Being aggrieved by the impugned order of punishment, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent no.1 and the appellate authority vide order dated 23.11.2009 has been pleased to reject the appeal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, during course of hearing, has strenuously urged that the impugned order of punishment of removal from services on the alleged charges of gross negligence though monetary loss has been caused to the bank, is shockingly disproportionate and harsh to the alleged charges because of fact that as per the memorandum of settlement dated 10.04.2002 Para 6 Clause (b) of the said memorandum relates to gross and minor misconduct. In this respect, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in the case of Collector Singh Vs. L.M.L. Limited, Kanpur as reported in (2015) 2 SCC 410 and also referred to the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in the case of Kailash Nath Gupta Vs. Enquiry Officer, (R.K. Rai), Allahabad Bank and Others as reported in (2003) 9 SCC 480 . The charges which have been levelled against the petitioner comes under Para 7(d) of the said memorandum and not under Para 6(b) of the memorandum. Therefore, the respondent authorities ought to have inflicted the punishment under Para 7(d) and not under Para 6(b) of the said memorandum. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the order passed by the respondents is non-speaking, cryptic and non-reasoned order moreover, the appellate authority has passed the order which is a non-speaking one. In this respect, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the decision of the Honourable Apex Court in the case of G. Vallikumari Vs. Andhra Education Society And Others as reported in (2010) 2 SCC 497 , in particular paragraph nos. 19 and 20, wherein the Honourable Apex Court has inter-alia pleased to hold that non-recording reasons by the disciplinary authority and simply referring to the findings of the inquiry report vitiate due to non-compliance of principle of natural justice.