Back
High Court Of Calcutta
Paritosh Kumar Mukherjee
ANANTA SUBRAMANIA PADMANABHAN Alias A.PADMANABHAN - Appellant
Versus
UNION BANK OF INDIA - Respondent
C. H. 1562 Of 1985
Decided On : 08/31/1987
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK OFFICER EMPLOYEES (DISCIPLINE AND APPEAL) REGULATIONS, 1977 - SECTION 6 (7) - The court interpreted Section 6 (7) of the Punjab National Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1977, which provides that an officer or employee may take the assistance of any other officer or employee but may not engage a legal practitioner unless the Presenting Officer is a legal practitioner or the Disciplinary Authority permits. The court held that the grant of representation by a legal practitioner is left to the discretion of the disciplinary authority, which is dependent on the facts of each case, such as the intricacy of the charges, the volume of evidence, and the complexity of the law and evidence involved.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a former Branch Manager of Punjab National Bank, challenged the second charge sheet issued against him and the subsequent departmental proceedings, alleging violations of natural justice and procedural irregularities. The petitioner contended that the charge sheet was issued without authority as the alleged offenses occurred before the relevant regulations came into force, that he was not provided with a copy of the articles of charge and statement of allegations, that the statement of allegations was vague and indefinite, and that he was denied the assistance of a legal practitioner during the inquiry.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the second charge sheet was issued in accordance with the principles of natural justice and that the petitioner was provided with a copy of the articles of charge and statement of allegations. The court also found that the statement of allegations was not vague and indefinite and that the petitioner was not denied the assistance of a legal practitioner during the inquiry. The court held that the disciplinary authority had the discretion to grant or deny the petitioner's request for legal assistance and that, in the circumstances of the case, the denial of legal assistance did not violate the principles of natural justice.
Issues: 1. Whether the second charge sheet was issued in accordance with the principles of natural justice. 2. Whether the petitioner was provided with a copy of the articles of charge and statement of allegations. 3. Whether the statement of allegations was vague and indefinite. 4. Whether the petitioner was denied the assistance of a legal practitioner during the inquiry. 5. Whether the disciplinary authority had the discretion to grant or deny the petitioner's request for legal assistance.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the disciplinary authority had the discretion to grant or deny the petitioner's request for legal assistance and that, in the circumstances of the case, the denial of legal assistance did not violate the principles of natural justice. The court reasoned that the grant of representation by a legal practitioner is left to the discretion of the disciplinary authority, which is dependent on the facts of each case, such as the intricacy of the charges, the volume of evidence, and the complexity of the law and evidence involved.
Final Decision: The court discharged the rule and dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner's challenges to the second charge sheet and the subsequent departmental proceedings failed.
( 1 ) - The present writ petition has been moved by A. Padmanabhan, the former Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Chittaranjan Avenue Branch, for the second time, on February 12, 1985, when after the order of' remand bypassed by this Court in terms of the judgment, dated June 29, 1982, delivered by P. C. Borooah, J, in Matter No. 1267 of 1981, His Lordship gave express liberty to the bank authorities, to issue fresh charge sheet, against the petitioner, if so advised, in accordance with law, after quashing all earlier charge sheet, dated November 21, 1977, and all subsequent proceeding thereto, including the order of dismissal, and the appellate order.
( 2 ) AT the time of issuance of the Rule, no interim order was granted by Umesh Chandra Banerjee, J, except that enquiry, which was stated to have commenced, shall continue and final order might be passed, but the same shall not be communicated to the' petitioner, until further orders of this court.
( 3 ) THE writ petition was mentioned before me on February 17, 1987, when l was taking "ready matters", under Article 226 of the Constitution "for hearing", and it was pointed out by the counsel for bank administration before me on that day that the respondents have passed the final order in the departmental proceeding, which has been kept in "sealed cover" and filed, in court before me.
( 4 ) ON the subsequent date of hearing, on February 23, 1987, Mr. P. K, Sengupta, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the bank administration, submitted that in view of passing of the final order of dismissal, which has been filed in court, the present writ petition had been rendered infructuous, but after hearing Mr. Sakti Nath Mukherjee, learned Advocate for the writ petitioner on the issue of amendment of pleadings, and considering 'the e4se reported in A. I. R. 1968 S. C. 1165 (Mair Service Society v. X. C. Alexander ). I had granted leave to the writ petitioner to file an application for formal amendment, incorporating additional grounds and prayers, challenging the said final order.
( 5 ) AFTER the application for amendment was allowed by me, the hearing of the writ petition commenced on and from February 25, 1987, and the same was concluded on March 30, 1987, and judgment was reserved.
( 6 ) MR. Sakti Nath Mukherjee, learned Advocate for the petitioner formulated the following points in challenging the second charge sheet arid continuation of the entire proceeding.
( 7 ) HE submitted in the first place, that the second charge sheet has to be issued against the petitioner in accordance with the principles of natural justice but the same has not been done by the disciplinary authority in the instant case. 7a. Next, he submitted that the articles of charge and the statement of allegations were not supplied to the petitioner and, as such, the petitioner was not in a position to meet the same.
( 8 ) THIRDLY, he submitted that the proceeding has been initiated in 1977, and under 1977 Regulation, the cause of action and/or incidents, before enforcement of the Regulation as such, could not form part of the said 1977 Regulation.
( 9 ) IN the fourth place, he submitted that the statement of allegations were vague and indefinite and no effective reply could be given to such vague statement of allegations.
( 10 ) LASTLY, he submitted that as no documents were supplied to the petitioner, although prayed for, and no inspection was given, the entire proceedings was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice.
( 11 ) ON the point, of vagueness of the charges relating to the charge sheet dated October 25, 1983, issued in respect of the petitioner, my attention has been drawn to pages 108 to 116 of the original unamended writ petition. Article-I of the Statement of Articles of Charges contains undue unauthorised accommodation to "various" parties. No date has been given to the allowing of Rs. 79,320 to the party against his powers of allow
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
