Point of law: Imposition of penalty – set aside -Bank has imposed penalty without permitting the petitioner to be defended in accordance with law. It is not a violation of the Bank's rights, it is not a violation of a legal right"it is violation of the petitioner's human right

ORDER :

1. My eye is my ear; my hand is my mouth, laments the petitioner, having disability of hearing to the tune of 98% challenging the action of the Bank in imposing a penalty without affording a reasonable opportunity of defence.

2. Brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the petition as borne out from the pleadings are that:

The petitioner joined the services of the respondent-Syndicate Bank (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Bank’ for short), a ‘State’ under Article 12 of the Constitution of India, as a Clerk on 25.10.1976. At the relevant point in time, the petitioner was working as Manager, a cadre in Middle Management Grade Scale II.

3. When the petitioner was functioning as a Manager In-charge of Stationery Pool of the Bank, having taken charge of the post on 22.12.2010. The petitioner sought approval of the competent Authority on 01.03.2011, for issuing a notice calling for bids from eligible agencies. Four of the agencies had applied pursuant to the bid notice. On 10.03.2011, the petitioner awarded contract in favour of the lowest bidder-L1 along with a detailed office note as to how the said bid was executed.

4. After about a year, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 30.03.2012, seeking the petitioner to show cause as to why the proceedings should not be initiated against him for certain irregularities in the process of the bid contract in 10.03.2011. The petitioner gave a detailed reply to the show cause notice seeking time and further demanded that he be given some documents to prepare his defence to the show cause notice. The Bank not acceding to the said reply, issued a charge-sheet against the petitioner on 01.06.2012 and initiated enquiry proceedings. The petitioner then informed the Bank that the Bank is aware of the fact that he has disability of hearing impairment to the tune of 98% and sought legal assistance to defend him in the enquiry. When the Bank did not accede to the request of the petitioner to engage a legal representative notwithstanding the disability of the petitioner, the petitioner approached this Court in Writ Petition No. 44341/2012, which was dismissed by an order dated 21.10.2013.

5. After the dismissal of the writ petition, the petitioner requested the Bank to await the receipt of the certified copy of the order in the said writ petition, so that he could prefer an appeal. Not waiting for the receipt of the certified copy of the order in writ petition No. 44341/2012, the matter was posted for cross-examination and on conclusion of the enquiry, the petitioner is found guilty of the allegations. The Disciplinary Authority passed an order dated 31.01.2014, imposing penalty of reverting the petitioner from the rank of MMGS-II to JMGS-I and fixing his pay at Rs. 20,100/-. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority only to be dismissed by order dated 04.09.2014. Aggrieved by the orders of both the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority, preferred a review before the Reviewing Authority which was also dismissed by order dated 19.11.2014. It is these orders that are called in question by the petitioner in this writ petition.

6. Heard Sri. Kiran V. Ron, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri. Syed Kasif Ali, learned counsel for respondent.

7. Learned counsel representing the petitioner submits that the Bank being fully aware that the petitioner did have a disability of hearing to the tune of 98% has treated the petitioner as a normal employee and denied both legal assistance and defence assistance and made the petitioner defend his own case, which is violation of procedure and blatantly contrary to law.

8. He would further contend that the only intention of the respondent-Bank was to punish the petitioner and this plea of his can be gathered from the proceedings of the enquiry. He would submit that the petitioner is denied full pension notwithstanding his retirement long ago and would place reliance upon following judgment of the Hon’ble Division Ben