Back
2008 Supreme(Cal) 797
High Court Of Calcutta
S.P. Talukdar, J.
Dilip Kumar Sarkar : Appellant
Versus
United Bank Of India : Respondent
W.P. 12410 of 2005
Decided On : Aug 07, 2008
Important Points
Subject
Administrative Law - JUDICIAL REVIEW
Act Referred
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT : S.2(s)
Headnote
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE - WORKMAN - MAINTAINABILITY OF WRIT PETITION - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE - SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW - DISPROPORTIONATE PUNISHMENT - JUDICIAL INTERFERENCE - REMEDY OF JUDICIAL REVIEW - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - REASONABLENESS OF DECISION - STANDARD OF PROOF - DECISION MAKING PROCESS - RECONSIDERATION OF PUNISHMENT - INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 - ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION - WORKMAN - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE - SCOPE OF JUDICIAL REVIEW - DISPROPORTIONATE PUNISHMENT - JUDICIAL INTERFERENCE - REMEDY OF JUDICIAL REVIEW - ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - REASONABLENESS OF DECISION - STANDARD OF PROOF - DECISION MAKING PROCESS - RECONSIDERATION OF PUNISHMENT
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a cash clerk in the United Bank of India, was dismissed from service following disciplinary proceedings initiated against him based on complaints of alleged misconduct. He challenged the dismissal order and the appellate authority's order upholding the dismissal, arguing violations of principles of natural justice, insufficiency of evidence, and disproportionate punishment.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the writ petition was maintainable, as the petitioner had alleged violations of principles of natural justice and the availability of an alternative remedy before an industrial tribunal did not preclude the exercise of writ jurisdiction. The Court found no merit in the petitioner's challenge to the sufficiency of evidence and the alleged violations of principles of natural justice. However, the Court held that the punishment of dismissal was shockingly disproportionate to the charges and directed the appellate authority to reconsider the punishment after giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard.
Issues: 1. Maintainability of writ petition by a workman despite the availability of an alternative remedy before an industrial tribunal. 2. Violation of principles of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings. 3. Sufficiency of evidence to support the findings of misconduct. 4. Disproportionality of the punishment of dismissal.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that writ jurisdiction can be extended to take care of any act of injustice, including alleged violations of principles of natural justice, even if an alternative remedy is available. 2. The Court reiterated the principles of natural justice, including the right to a fair hearing and the opportunity to be heard, but found no evidence of their violation in the present case. 3. The Court held that the standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings is preponderance of probability, not proof beyond reasonable doubt, and that the sufficiency of evidence is a matter for the disciplinary authority to determine. 4. The Court recognized that judicial review of administrative decisions is limited and that the Court should not substitute its own opinion for that of the authority, but it can interfere if the decision is outside the band of reasonableness.
Final Decision: The Court directed the appellate authority to reconsider the punishment imposed on the petitioner after giving him an opportunity of being heard, within a specified timeframe.
Anima Chakraborty, Asish Sanyal, Gautam Chakraborty, R.N.Majumdar, Suman Sengupta,
1. THE instant application under Article 226 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 19. 5. 2005 passed by the Deputy General Manager and c. R. M., Appellate authority, United Bank of India. The petitioner, by filing such application, also sought for quashing of the order of dismissal dated 15. 3. 2005 passed by the Assistant Manager and Disciplinary Authority, United Bank of India.
2. THE backdrop of the present case may briefly be stated as follows:-Petitioner was appointed as cash clerk in the U. B. I., Kolay Market Branch on 16th may, 1973. After more than 30 years, certain complaints were lodged i. e. on 29. 10. 2003 resulting in the authority's issuance of an order of suspension dated 1. 11. 2003. Charge sheet was thereafter issued on 25th March, 2004. The petitioner submitted his reply on 30th april, 2004. Enquiry proceedings commenced on 21st May, 2004. It was on 3rd of March, 2005 that the petitioner was intimated about the proposed punishment of dismissal from service. He was requested to appear on 14th March, 2005 before the disciplinary authority. Then on 15. 3. 2005, the order of dismissal was issued and thus, the petitioner was dismissed from service with immediate effect. On 24th March, 2005, he challenged the order of dismissal by preferring an appeal. He appeared before the said authority on 29th April, 2005. The appellate authority by its order dated 19th May, 2005 affirmed the order of dismissal dated 15. 3. 2005 as made by the disciplinary authority. The petitioner thereafter filed the instant application seeking necessary redress.
The respondent/bank, by filing Affidavit-in-Opposition, denied the material allegations made in the writ application. It was claimed that the petitioner being an Award staff is admittedly a workman within the meaning of Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes act, 1947 and as such, he has an efficacious alternative remedy before a Forum under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Thus, maintainability of the writ application was challenged. It was further claimed that adjudication of the controversy raised in the application involves analysis of the disputed question of facts which, a writ court is not likely to entertain. It was specifically claimed that during his service at Sealdah Branch of the respondent/bank, the petitioner allegedly committed certain gross misconduct within the meaning of Clause 5 (j) of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 10th April, 2002. The petitioner gave reply to the charge sheet by letter dated 30th April, 2004. Since it was not considered to be satisfactory, a departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner on the basis of the charge sheet dated 25th March, 2004. The petitioner duly participated in the said enquiry and was afforded reasonable opportunity to defend himself. Such enquiry was held in due compliance with the principles of natural justice. The petitioner was duly represented by his representative Sri Amalendu Halder, Cash-cum-General Clerk, New market Branch of the respondent/bank and Vice-President, National Executive, UBIFC. He was allowed to cross-examine the witnesses who adduced evidence on behalf of the management and was further given opportunity to produce his own witnesses. The Enquiry officer thereafter submitted his report to the disciplinary authority on 12th July, 2004 thereby holding that all the charges as levelled against the petitioner were proved or partially proved. The petitioner was thereafter served with a copy of such report and was invited to make his submission on the same. Such service could be effected through the superintendent of Presidency Correctional Home, Alipore on 20th August, 2004 during his remand to the Correctional Home. The petitioner was released on 14th October, 2004, but did not choose to furnish his submission on the enquiry report. The authority concerned by subsequent letter dated 17th November, 2004 offered further opportunity to the petitioner.
