1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.609 OF 2002
Deepak Narayan Bhandarkar )
Residing at 8/B, Oliver Mansion, )
Plot No.334-A, Mahim Bazar )
Post Office Lane, Mahim, )
Mumbai 400 016 ).Petitoner
V/s.
1. The Chairman, Union Bank of India )
Central Office, Union Bank Bhavan
ig )
239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, )
Nariman Point, )
Mumbai 400 021 )
)
2. Managing Director, )
Industrial Relation Department, )
Union Bank of India, )
Central Office, Union Bank Bhavan )
239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, )
Nariman Point, )
Mumbai 400 021 )
)
3. Deputy General Manager(P), )
Industrial Relation Department, )
Union Bank of India, )
Central Office, Union Bank Bhavan )
239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, )
Nariman Point, )
Mumbai 400 021 )
)
4. The Assistant General Manager(P), )
Industrial Relation Department, )
Union Bank of India, )
Central Office, Union Bank Bhavan )
239, Vidhan Bhavan Marg, )
Nariman Point, )
Mumbai 400 021 ).Respondents
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 14:47:01 :::
2
Mr.Rahul Nerlekar, Advocate, for the petitioner
Mr.Ashok D. Shetty, Advocate, for the respondents.
CORAM : P.B.MAJMUDAR &
R.M.SAVANT, JJ.
DATE : 15TH JULY, 2009
ORAL JUDGMENT ( PER P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )
.
petitioner
By way
has
ig of
challenged
this Writ
the Order
Petition,
of removal
the
passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 14th
February, 2001, a copy of which is annexed Exhibit
K to the Writ Petition. By the aforesaid order,
the petitioner was subjected to major penalty of
removal from service which shall not be a
disqualification for future employment.
2. The petitioner joined the services of the
Bank as an officer on 16th August, 1975. Vide Memo
dated 23rd September, 1999, the petitioner was
advised by the Regional Office, Mumbai, that he
stood relieved at the close of the office hours
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:47:01 :::
3
on 23rd September, 1999, and to report to the Deputy
General Manager, Zonal Office, Bhopal immediately.
He had not resumed his duties at Bhopal and
accordingly, he unauthorizedly remained absent from
duty. The petitioner, was accordingly subjected to
Chargesheet by way of Memorandum dated 19th April,
2000. The petitioner gave a reply to the said
Memorandum datedig 12th May, 2000. A Departmental
Enquiry was conducted against the petitioner by
appointing an Enquiry Officer. The defence of the
petitioner was that he was suffering from various
ailments and due to that it was not possible for
him to resume his duties at Bhopal. The petitioner
also produced some Medical Certificates during the
course of Enquiry to point out that he was ill and
at the relevant time it was difficult for him to
resume his duties. The Disciplinary Authority
however, by the impugned Order came to a conclusion
that the petitioner committed an act of misconduct
by remaining unauthorizedly absent. It was found
that his absence from 21st September, 1999, till
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:47:01 :::
4
date of the order of the Disciplinary Authority was
treated as unauthorized absence. Accordingly, the
Order of removal was passed by the Disciplinary
Authority. The petitioner carried the matter
further before the Appellate Authority by way of
preferring an Appeal. The Appellate Authority
decided the said Appeal by its Order dated 12 th May,
2001. The Appellate Authority did not interfere
with the Order passed by the Disciplinary
Authority. The petitioner, thereafter, carried the
matter further by way of Review Application but the
same was rejected by the Reviewing Authority.
3. Being aggrieved by the said order, the
petitioner has now approached this Court by way of
this Writ Petition.
4. Mr.Rahul Nerlekar, the learned counsel for
the petitioner vehemently submitted that the
Disciplinary Authority, who passed the Order
subsequently became the Appellate Authority on
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:47:01 :::
5
account of promotion and the same person, who had
decided the matter as Disciplinary Authority has
decided the Appeal of the petitioner. Therefore,
the Order of the Appellate Authority is bad in law
as the same has been passed by the same person, who
had passed the removal Order against the petitioner
while acting as the Disciplinary Authority.
5.
Mr.Ashok D. Shetty, the learned counsel for
the respondents has fairly conceeded the aspect
that at the relevant time the Disciplinary
Authority, who passed the order was the Assistant
General Manager and the same person on being
promoted as Deputy General Manager became the
Appellate Authority and decided the Appeal of the
petitioner. In our view, the Appeal should not
have been decided by the same person, who had
passed the original Order as the Disciplinary
Authority. The hearing of the Appeal should be
meaningful and not a mere formality. On this very
short ground this Writ Petition is required to be
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:47:01 :::
6
allowed by setting aside the Order of the Appellate
Authority and remanding the matter back to the
Appellate Authority. It is clarified that all the
points raised in this Writ Petition are kept open
for the petitioner to urge the same before the
Appellate Authority.
6. The Appeal would be decided by one, who has
not passed the Order of removal as the Disciplinary
Authority. The Appellate Authority may now decide
the Appeal within a period of three months from the
receipt of Writ from this Court. The Appellate
Authority shall afford personal hearing to the
petitioner. We have directed the Appellate
Authority to hear the petitioner, but the same may
not be treated as precedent in any other case, as
considering the time lag and peculiar facts &
circumstances of the case, it is directed that
personal hearing may be given to the petitioner.
7. In view of what is stated above, the Writ
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:47:01 :::
7
Petition is allowed. Rule is accordingly made
absolute in the aforesaid terms.
( R.M.SAVANT, J. ) ( P.B.MAJMUDAR, J. )
::: Downloaded on – 09/06/2013 14:47:01 :::