Back
2006 Supreme(Cal) 706
High Court Of Calcutta
ARUN KUMAR MITRA
SATYABRATA SEN - Appellant
Versus
UNITED BANK OF INDIA - Respondent
C. O. 16984 (W) Of 1996
Decided On : 11/15/2006
DILIP KUNDU, SUBRATA ROY, SWAPAN KR.DUTT, T.SEN
Supervisory lapses do not constitute misconduct under the United Bank of India Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976.
Headnote:
UNITED BANK OF INDIA OFFICER EMPLOYEES' (DISCIPLINE AND APPEAL) REGULATIONS, 1976 - SUPERVISORY LAPSES - MISCONDUCT: Supervisory lapses do not constitute misconduct under the United Bank of India Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a United Bank of India officer, was issued a charge sheet alleging irregularities in borrowal accounts with the bank's overseas branch. The petitioner challenged the charge sheet and subsequent proceedings, including the final order of dismissal. The petitioner alleged violations of natural justice principles, withholding of documents, and bias on the part of the disciplinary authority.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated without a preliminary inquiry and that the petitioner was not provided with all the necessary documents for his defense. The court also found that the inquiry officer's findings were perverse and that the disciplinary authority did not provide reasons for accepting the unproved portions of the charges.
Issues: 1. Whether supervisory lapses constitute misconduct under the United Bank of India Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976? 2. Whether the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice? 3. Whether the disciplinary authority acted with bias?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Supervisory lapses do not constitute misconduct under the United Bank of India Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976. 2. The disciplinary proceedings were not conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice as the petitioner was not provided with all the necessary documents for his defense. 3. The disciplinary authority acted with bias by appointing the inquiry officer and presenting officer before receiving the petitioner's reply to the charge sheet.
Final Decision: The court set aside the entire disciplinary proceeding, including the inquiry finding and the order of dismissal. The court directed the bank authorities to pay the petitioner's legal heirs the entire retiral dues and other dues with interest.
( 1 ) CHALLENGE in this writ petition is the initiation of departmental proceeding, conduction of inquiry and the final order passed in the proceeding initiated against the petitioner.
( 2 ) THE petitioner joined United Bank of india as Senior Engineer in the year 1972. The petitioner ultimately was confirmed in the post after probation and in the year 1981 he was promoted to the post of Assistant General manager (Engineering and Estates ). The petitioner was selected by the departmental promotion committee and was promoted to the post of Top Management Grade Scale-VI from senior Management Grade Scale V. Ultimately, the petitioner was confirmed in the bank's top management Grade Scale VI as deputy General Manager (Reconstruction and counselling) w. e. f. July 11, 1990. At this stage the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet issued by the General Manager (Credit) and disciplinary authority of the petitioner. In the charge-sheet dated December 22, 1990 the petitioner was charged with certain alleged events/incidents relating to the period prior to his promotion and confirmation to the post of deputy General Manager (Reconstruction and counselling) in Top Management Grade Scale v. The said charge-sheet was issued by the then General Manager (Credit ).
( 3 ) THE petitioner challenged the said charge-sheet in the writ petition before Hon'ble justice KALYANMOY GANGULI (As His Lordship then was) on August 23, 1991. After hearing the parties His Lordship passed an interim order to the extent that proceeding would continue but no final order should be passed without the leave of this High Court. The disciplinary proceedings were directed to be completed within a period of three months from the date of communication of the order.
( 4 ) THE Bank did not act in terms of the order of this Court passed in August 23, 1991 and ultimately, filed and application for modification and on January 6, 1992 the hon'ble Justice MONORANJAN MULLICK (as His lordship then was) directed to complete the inquiry by two months from January 6, 1992.
( 5 ) ON December 22, 1995 the Hon'ble justice HARM GHOSH (As His Lordship then was) directed the Bank authorities to pass the final order on or before January 5, 1996 and also directed not to give the effect to same until january 29, 1996. It was recorded by His lordship that the petitioner would accept the final order without prejudice to his rights and contentions as His Lordship did not go into the merits of the writ petition.
( 6 ) IN pursuance of the order of this High court dated December 22, 1995 passed by hon'ble Justice BARIN GHOSH, a major penalty of reduction of the petitioner's basic pay by one stage lower in his present scale of pay with immediate effect in terms of regulation 7 (3) of the United Bank of India Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 was imposed upon the petitioner on January 4, 1996 by the disciplinary authority.
( 7 ) BEING aggrieved by the said order passed by the disciplinary authority, the petitioner moved a writ petition before Hon'ble justice D. P. KUNDU and upon hearing His lordship issued Rule and the respondents were directed to file affidavit-in- opposition. Liberty was given to the petitioner to pray for interim order by a separate application. The said C. R. No. 1939 (W)/1995 is still pending.
( 8 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, pursuant to the liberty granted to him, the petitioner filed an application for interim order for release of the entire retirement benefits after deducting the benefits covered by the order dated January 4, 1996. The said application was taken up for hearing by Hon'ble Justice D. P. KUNDU and upon hearing His Lordship directed that on retirement of the petitioner from service, the bank authorities would pay the retirement benefits to the petitioner under Regulation 20 (iii) of the said Regulations of 1976 and his own contribution of provident fund.
( 9 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner, when he was p
