Back
2006 Supreme(Cal) 738
High Court Of Calcutta
V. S. Sirpurkar, CJ. And N. Patherya, J.
ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE - Appellant
Versus
SUMANTA KUMAR NAYAK - Respondent
W. P. 1567 Of 2001
Decided On : 11/28/2006
B.DUTTA, HIRAK KUMAR MITRA, RAJASRI CHANDA, SOUMYA MAJUMDER, Subrata Talukdar
Headnote:
BANKING - ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE OFFICER EMPLOYEES (DISCIPLINE AND APPEAL) REGULATIONS, 1982 - REMOVAL OF EMPLOYEE - CHARGE OF SUBMITTING FORGED CASTE CERTIFICATE TO BANKING SERVICE RECRUITMENT BOARD TO CLAIM SCHEDULED TRIBE STATUS - INQUIRY - DOCUMENTS NOT SUPPLIED TO EMPLOYEE - WHETHER NON-SUPPLY OF DOCUMENTS FATAL TO INQUIRY - HELD, NO - APPEAL ALLOWED.
Fact of the Case:
Employee of the bank was served with a chargesheet alleging that he submitted a forged caste certificate to the Banking Service Recruitment Board (BSRB) claiming Scheduled Tribe status at the time of his appointment. A full-fledged departmental inquiry was conducted against him and he was found guilty. The employee challenged the departmental inquiry proceedings and the resultant punishment of removal in a writ petition before the High Court on the ground that he was denied an effective opportunity to conduct his defense as the documents sought by him were not supplied. The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed both the inquiry and the removal order. The bank filed an appeal against the High Court's order.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the learned Judge was not right in allowing the writ petition and setting aside the removal order as also the inquiry proceedings on the grounds that he did. The Court found that there was voluminous evidence to suggest that the employee falsely claimed the status of a Scheduled Tribe at the time of his entry into the bank and that there is a caste certificate issued in his name which must have obviously been sent by the BSRB to the bank along with the other papers like marksheets etc. and that none else but the employee must have produced those documents before the BSRB at the time of appearing at the examination. The Court also held that the non-supply of the original form filled by the employee was of no consequence as even otherwise, there was voluminous evidence to suggest that the employee falsely claimed the status of a Scheduled Tribe at the time of his entry into the bank.
Issues: 1. Whether the non-supply of documents sought by the employee was fatal to the inquiry? 2. Whether the employee was denied an effective opportunity to conduct his defense?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The strict rules of evidence are not applicable to departmental inquiry proceedings. 2. The only requirement of law is that the allegation against the delinquent officer must be established by such evidence acting upon which a reasonable person acting reasonably and with objectivity may arrive at a finding upholding the gravamen of the charge against the delinquent officer. 3. Mere conjecture or surmises cannot sustain the finding of guilt even in departmental inquiry proceedings. 4. The court exercising the jurisdiction of judicial review would not interfere with the findings of fact arrive at in the departmental inquiry proceedings except in a case of mala fides or perversity, that is, where there is no evidence to support a finding or where is such that no man acting reasonably and with objectivity, could have arrived at that finding. 5. Reappreciating of evidence or weighing the same like an appellate authority was not permissible.
Final Decision: Appeal allowed. Writ petition dismissed.
( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed by Oriental Bank of Commerce (hereinafter called 'bank' for short) against the judgment of the learned Single judge whereby the writ petition filed by one of its employees, one Sumanta kumar Nayak challenging the departmental inquiry proceedings and the resultant punishment of removal of the petitioner was allowed by the learned single Judge of this Court quashing both. Few facts would have to be necessary to understand the controversy involved.
( 2 ) ORIGINAL writ petitioner, Shri Sumanta Kumar Nayak, was working in the bank as Senior Manager when he came to be served with a chargesheet. There was only one charge which was as follows:
"charge No. 1: shri Sumanta Nayak, Senior Manager, Cuttack Branch was appointed in bank's Service as Probationary Officer vide letter dated December 24/28, 1982 on recommendation of Banking Service Recruitment Board (Delhi) vide their letter 3. 9. 81 dated 17. 11. 1981 under S/tribe Category. At the time of his appointment in the bank, Shri Sumanta Kumar Nayak submitted forged caste certificate purportedly issued by Shri D. Mishra, O. A. S. Tohsildar Udala stating that he belongs to 'bhuyan' Tribe which is recognized as Scheduled Tribe under the Constitution of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled tribe Order, 1950 as amended by the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes order (Amendment) Act, 1976. Sd/- general MANAGER (PERS) disciplinary AUTHORITY. "
2. 1. In pursuance of that chargesheet, a full-fledged departmental inquiry was conducted against him. The Inquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the charge was held to be proved. But before the termination order was passed, the petitioner rushed to this Court since he was called upon to submit his reply to the proposed penalty. In that, the petitioner did not even file an appeal before filing the writ petition.
( 3 ) THE case pleaded by the petitioner (hereinafter called 'delinquent officer') was that he had passed his B. Com. (Hons.) examination in the year 1977 from bhadrak College in the State of Orissa and after completing his M. Com. Degree from Utkal University, he came across an advertisement published by Banking service Recruitment Board, New Delhi (hereinafter 'bsrb' for short) in the year 1981 inviting application from eligible candidates for the post of probationary Officer in the various nationalized banks in the country. He pleaded that while submitting his application along with the necessary particulars and/or documents required by BSRB in the said advertisement, he had specifically made it clear that he was applying as a general candidate (and not as a Scheduled Tribe candidate ). He referred to the four documents, (a) original application submitted to BSRB with list of enclosure duly filled up by the petitioner and with his photograph affixed to the same, (b) Original admit card issued by BSRB with his roll No. printed thereon and his photograph affixed, (c) Original BSRB selection form with verified list of enclosure duly filled up by the petitioner and with his photograph affixed thereon and (d) original employment form supplied by the bank at the time of the petitioner's entry into service duly filled up by him with his full bio-data enclosed and photograph affixed thereon. He further pleaded that he had never misrepresented before the BSRB and had never claimed that he belonged to scheduled Tribe. The aforementioned four documents, however, were not filed by the petitioner along with the petition. The petitioner claimed that all through the bank was aware of the fact that he was belonging to the general category and not to the Scheduled Tribe category. He then referred to the show-cause notice served by the bank on him wherein it was alleged that while seeking employment as a Probationary Officer, he had submitted a forged taste certificate to the BSRB certifying that he belonged to the Scheduled Tribe. He further pleaded that he replied to the said show-cause notice and claimed th
