Writ Petition (S) No. 4701 of 2008
------
In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
——
Harun Topno …… Petitioner
Versus
1. Allahabad Bank through the Chief General
Manager, Allahabad Bank, Calcutta
2. The General Manager, Allahabad Bank, Ranchi
3. Deputy General Manager, Allahabad Bank, Ranchi
4. Branch Manager, Allahabad Bank, Ranchi
5. Regional Manager, Allahabad Bank …… Respondents
——
For the petitioner: Mr. Dilip Kr. Prasad, Advocate
For the respondents: Mrs. A.R. Choudhary, Advocate
——
PRESENT
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.PATEL
Order Dated 22.09.2011
Per D.N.Patel, J.: The present writ petition has been preferred mainly against
the orders, passed by the disciplinary authority, which are at Annexure 2
of the memo of petition, whereby, major punishment has been imposed
upon the petitioner to the effect that twelve increments with future effect
have been stopped with a cumulative effect, in terms of Clause No.
19.6(d) Bipartite Settlement, 1966, as amended up to date.
Consequently, all the salaries, perquisites etc. of the period of
suspension, except the subsistence allowance, paid to the petitioner,
have been forfeited. This order has been passed by the Regional
Manager & disciplinary Authority on 27th May, 1994. Against this order,
departmental appeal was preferred before the Deputy General Manager
of the respondent Bank and the appeal, preferred by the petitioner, has
been dismissed vide order dated 3rd January, 1995, which is at Annexure
B to the counter affidavit, filed by the respondents. Against these two
orders, the present writ petition has been preferred.
2. One interlocutory application bearing I.A. No. 1406 of 2009 has been
allowed by this Court vide order dated 11.5.2009.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is
basically not a peon of Allahabad Bank rather he is an Armed Guard of
Allahabad Bank of Jogeshwar Colliery Branch. It has been alleged
against the petitioner that on 13.8.1991 one letter was given to the
2.
petitioner from Jogeshwar Colliery Branch of Allahabad Bank to deliver
the same at Ranchi Branch. It is alleged against the petitioner that the
said letter was never delivered to the Branch at Ranchi, which has
resulted into loss of Rs.60,000/-, as the same was pertaining to forged
demand draft. It has also been alleged in the memo of charge against
the petitioner that the petitioner knew the contents of the letter.
4. So far as the second charge is concerned, it is alleged that the petitioner
was given a letter on 13th August, 1991 at 2.30 p.m. to deliver the same
at Ranchi Branch, but, he had shown his attendance at Jogeshwar
Colliery Branch from 10.15 a.m. to 5.45 p.m. and he has not charged any
T.E. Bill and and in the 3rd charge, it has been stated that there was a
malafide intention on the part of the petitioner.
5. The aforesaid charges were denied by the petitioner. The inquiry
proceeding was initiated on 10th July, 1993 and completed on 26th
November, and, thereafter, the inquiry officer submitted its report on 6th
January, 1994 and the charges levelled against the petitioner are found
to be proved. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority has imposed the
aforesaid penalties.
6. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that never it was
the duty of the petitioner to deliver such type of post from one Branch to
another Branch, because he was an Armed Guard of Allahabad Bank of
its Jogeshwar Colliery Branch. Moreover, in a criminal proceeding, the
petitioner has been acquitted vide order dated 14th March, 2007, at the
appellate stage by the learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi. This order
of acquittal is at Annexure 1 to the memo of petition. Learned counsel for
the petitioner further submitted that the inquiry report is based upon no
evidence. The witnesses of the Management have failed to prove the
charges levelled against the petitioner. This aspect of the matter has not
been properly appreciated by the respondents. Moreover, the
punishment awarded to the petitioner is shockingly disproportionate to
the charges, levelled against the petitioner, for the reasons that the
petitioner was never indulged in such type of misconduct and never, in
past, any such type of misconduct has been committed by the petitioner
and never any charge was given to the petitioner and now the petitioner
has already reached the age of superannuation on 31st October, 2010
and, thus, there is no question of repetition of such type of misconduct,
whatsoever, by the petitioner. There is no charge against the petitioner
3.
for his conspiracy or any benefit has been derived by the petitioner from
the so called forged demand draft. Thus, the only charge is that the
petitioner has not delivered the letter given from the Jogeshwar Colliery
Branch to Ranchi Branch of Allahabad Bank and, therefore, let the order
of punishment be quashed by this Court and the matter be remanded to
the disciplinary authority for taking a fresh decision for imposing lesser
punishment.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the respondent-Bank, who has
vehemently submitted that there is no procedural lapses in holding the
departmental inquiry. The charges levelled against the petitioner have
been proved, as stated in the inquiry report, given by the inquiry officer
on 6th January, 1994. So far as quantum of punishment is concerned, it
is stated by the learned counsel for the respondent-Bank that looking to
the gravity of charge, the quantum of punishment is absolutely in
consonence with the misconduct and it cannot be labelled as shockingly
disproportionate punishment, because the petitioner has not delivered a
post, given to him from Jogeshwar Colliery Branch to deliver the same at
Ranchi Branch on 13th August, 1991, which has resulted into the delay in
detection of the case and, therefore, this writ petition deserves to be
dismissed.
8. Having heard learned counsel for both the parties and looking to the
facts and circumstances of the case as also looking to the nature of the
charges, levelled against the petitioner, as stated herein above, which is
also reflected in Annexure 2 to the memo of petition, it appears that one
letter was given to the petitioner from Jogeshwar Colliery Branch to
deliver the same at Ranchi Branch on 13th August, 1991. The petitioner
was an Armed Guard at Jogeshwar Colliery Branch of Allahabad Bank.
9. Looking to the 1st charge, it appears that the letter was pertaining to
forged demand draft for Rs.60,000/-. This demand draft was already
encashed on 27th June, 1991 i.e. much prior to the letter dated 13th
August, 1991, which was given to the petitioner for delivering the same
at Ranchi Branch. Thus, the delay, if any, regarding encashment of the
bank draft was over much earlier i.e. on 27th June, 1991. This so called
letter dated 13th August, 1991 was given only for further inquiry and
looking to 1st charge (which is reflected at Annexure 2 to the memo of
petition), it appears that some delay has occurred in detection of the
cause of encashment of a bank draft due to non-delivery of the aforesaid
4.
letter by the petitioner. This appears to be a highest charge against the
petitioner.
10. So far as 2nd charge is concerned, though the letter was given at 2.30
p.m. on 13th August, 1991 to the petitioner, in the attendance register the
petitioner has shown his attendance from 10.15 a.m. to 5.45 p.m. The
knowledge of the contents of the letter is also imposed upon the
petitioner. Nobody knows whether an Armed Guard will be able to read
that letter or not; whether it was in a sealed cover or not; whether the
letter was in English or in Hindi language and whether the petitioner was
at all able to read such language. All these facts are not coming from the
evidence on record.
11. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the punishment, imposed against
the petitioner of forfeiture of twelve increments and that too with
cumulative effect, appears to be shockingly disproportionate to the
charges. Normally for non-delivery of a letter, such a punishment is
grossly disproportionate, because the act of encashment of the demand
draft was already over on 27th June, 1991 and the letter, which was to be
delivered by the petitioner, was dated 13th August, 1991. It is not a
charge against the petitioner that he has received some amount out of
that Rs.60,000/-, which has been encashed. Under these set of
circumstances and also keeping in mind the fact that henceforth, there is
no question of repeating such type of misconduct by petitioner
whatsoever arises, because the petitioner has already retired from
service upon reaching the age of superannuation on 31st October, 2010
and moreover, the petitioner has also been acquitted in the criminal
appeal by the Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi vide order dated 14th March,
2007, I hereby quash and set aside the order, passed by the Regional
Manager and Disciplinary Authority dated 27th May, 1994 (Annexure 2 to
the memo of petition) as well as the order dated 3rd January, 1995,
passed by the Deputy Manager-cum-Appellate Authority (Annexure B to
the counter affidavit, filed by the respondents), so far it relates to the
imposition of punishment upon the petitioner and, though the inquiry
conducted by the respondents is in consonence with law and there is no
procedural defect in conducting the departmental inquiry, since adequate
opportunity of being heard has already been given to the petitioner, I
hereby remand the matter to the Disciplinary Authority of the respondent-
Bank for taking a fresh decision, so far as the quantum of punishment is
5.
concerned. This decision will be taken, in accordance with law, and after
giving an adequate opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, as early
as possible and practicable.
12. This writ petition is allowed and disposed of to the aforesaid extent.
(D.N.Patel, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated the 22nd September, 2011
A.K.Verma/ N.A.F.R.