Back
2024 Supreme(Pat) 322
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Anshuman, J.
Pranab Kumar Saha Son of Late Nani Gopal Saha - Petitioner
Versus
The Punjab National Bank through its Chairman Head Office, Plot No.-4, Sector- 10, Dwarika, New Delhi and ors. – Respondents
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4914 of 2018
Decided On : 29-04-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Gautam Saha, Advocate
For the Respondent:Dr. Pankaj, Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that while the disciplinary authority had the power to issue charge memos, any inconsistencies in the charges, particularly regarding the applicable schemes, could invalidate the disciplinary proceedings.
Headnote:
DISCIPLINARY ACTION - PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK REGULATIONS - Regulation 4(F), Regulation 5(1), Regulation 5(2), Regulation 5(3), Regulation 3(1), Regulation 3(3), Regulation 24 - The court examined the Punjab National Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulation 1977, particularly focusing on the authority of the Disciplinary Authority to issue charge memos and the definitions of penalties. The court found that the charge memo was issued by a competent authority and that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in accordance with the regulations. However, it identified a significant error in the charges related to the SME and MSME schemes, leading to the conclusion that the orders imposed were flawed and required reevaluation.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Senior Manager at Punjab National Bank, challenged disciplinary actions taken against him for sanctioning loans for 46 tractors under the CGTMSE scheme without collateral. He argued that the charge memo was issued by an incompetent authority and that he had not violated any bank guidelines, as evidenced by positive inspection reports and letters of appreciation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that while the charge memo was issued by a competent authority, there was a critical error in the charges regarding the SME and MSME schemes. The court determined that the disciplinary proceedings were flawed due to this inconsistency and required the appellate authority to reconsider the case.
Issues: Whether the charge memo was issued by a competent authority and whether the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in accordance with the regulations. Additionally, whether the charges against the petitioner were valid given the discrepancies in the scheme references.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the definitions and procedures outlined in the Punjab National Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulation 1977 were followed in issuing the charge memo. However, the inconsistency in the charges related to the SME and MSME schemes constituted a significant legal error that warranted correction.
Final Decision: The court set aside the orders dated 14.06.2017 and 14.08.2017, directing the General Manager to rehear the petitioner’s appeal regarding the charges and issue a reasoned order within 90 days.
JUDGMENT :
Anshuman, J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent-Punjab National Bank.
2. The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-
(a) A writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ order/s direction/s for quashing the following:-
(i). The order dated 14.06.2017 passed by General Manager, Appellate Authority, Human Resources Management Division, Headquarter, New Delhi, Punjab National Bank imposing major penalty of reduction of salary by one stage in the time scale of pay on which he was then for a period till 31.07.2017 i.e. the date of his retirement with further direction that he would not earn increment of pay during the period of such reduction in terms of regulation 4(F) of PNB Officer Employees' (D & A) Regulation 1977. By modifying the major penalty of reduction of salary by two stages awarded by the disciplinary authority (Deputy G.M.), Punjab National Bank. (Annexure -14).
(ii). The order dated 11.11.2016 passed by Deputy Zonal Manager, the Disciplinary Authority and the Respondent No. 2 holding the Petitioner to be guilty of two charges and imposing major penalty of reduction of salary by two stages in the time scale of pay on which he was then placed for a period till the date of superannuation with further direction that he would not earn the increment of pay during the said period under Reg. 4 (F) of 1977 regulation.
(b) A writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ order/s direction/s commanding the respondents for the following:-
(i). To hold the orders contained in Annexure-14 and 15 to be nullity and non-est in the eye of law.
(ii). To give all monetary and other incidental of the promotion given to the Petitioner in the month of November, 15 from the Scale of III to Scale No. IV which in effect means giving of two increments i.e. hike in pay scale of the Petitioner and the consequential benefits to which the Petitioner is entitled to on account of said promotion.
(iii). To release withholding of the benefits of the aforesaid promotion to be without jurisdiction, illegal, arbitrary and not permissible.
(iv). To re-fix the pension amount and other retiral benefits taking into consideration treating the two punishments to be not there and after giving the benefit of promotion which was effective in month of November, 2015.
(c) To any other relief/s to which the Petitioner is found entitled to.
(d)(i). To quash and set aside the order dated 14.08.2017 (Annexure-15) passed by the Reviewing Anthority, Executive Director, Punjab National Bank, New Delhi.
(ii). To quash and set aside the charge sheet dated 19.11.2015 issued by the Deputy General manager, Punjab National Bank, New Delhi (Annexure-10).
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was Senior Manager (Management Grade-III) District Manager office in the Punjab National Bank who retired from service on 31.07.2017. Counsel submits that he was appointed in the Bank on 01.01.1979 and with the span of time, he was provided three promotions. The first promotion was granted to him from the cadre of Clerk to Junior Manager Grade-I (Officer) on 08.09.1988, second promotion was granted on 15.01.2023 from Junior Manager Grade-I to Branch Manager and third promotion was given to the cadre of Senior Manager (Management Grade-III) on 28.10.2009. Counsel submits that after promotion as Senior Manager he was transferred and his posting was at Udwantnagar Branch (Ara) of the bank from where he was relieved on 16.07.2013. In Udwantnagar Branch the petitioner had advanced loan for 46 Tractors. The loan so sanctioned was for commercial purpose, under Credit Guarantee Fund Scheme (CGTMSE) wherein no collateral was required to be pledged with the Bank. Counsel submits that after advancement of loan two routine inspections of the branch was done and in the inspection report neither any irregularity was found nor any adverse remark was made by the inspection team against th
