2001 Supreme(Cal) 278

HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Ashok Kumar Mathur, Girish Chandra Gupta, JJ.
Dhruba Pada Ghosh
Versus
Bank of Baroda & Ors.
Writ Appeal F.M.A. No.1027 of 1996
Decided On : May 14, 2001

The Disciplinary Authority is not required to pass a detailed speaking order while punishing the delinquent if they agree with the finding of the Enquiry Officer's Report.

Headnote:

DISCIPLINARY ACTION - BANKING SECTOR - SPEAKING ORDER REQUIREMENT - BIPARTITE SETTLEMENT INTERPRETATION - SERVICE LAW - DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRY - FINAL ORDER OF PUNISHMENT - SPEAKING OR REASONED ORDER - WHEN DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY IN HIS ORDER MERELY ACCEPTING THE FINDINGS AND PUNISHMENT PROPOSED ALONG WITH THE SUPPORTING REASONS OF THE ENQUIRY OFFICER, THE ORDER NEED NOT FURNISH DETAILED REASONS.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a "Cash Clerk" in the Bank of Baroda, was directed to perform the duties of Head Cashier in addition to his normal duties. He was provided keys to the strong room and cash safe. On 16th April 1985, he found that duplicate keys of the Iron Safe, Strong Room, etc. were brought from the Bhawanipore Branch on the signature of the Accountant and the Head Cashier who was on duty before his arrival. On 23rd April 1985, he received a letter from the respondent asking him to submit an explanation for alleged shortage of cash on 18th April 1985. He was placed under suspension on 6th May 1985 for contemplating an enquiry on account of shortage of cash worth Rs. 1,00,000/- on 18th April 1985. He was served with a charge-sheet for misappropriation of the sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. After an inquiry, the Enquiry Officer found him grossly negligent in performing his duties, tampering with the Bank's record, committing an act prejudicial to the interest of the Bank, and unbecoming of a Bank employee. He was given a show-cause notice and ultimately dismissed by the Disciplinary Authority. His appeal before the Appellate Authority was also dismissed. He filed a writ petition before the High Court, which set aside the orders of the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority and directed the petitioner to make a fresh appeal detailing all his grievances before the Appellate Authority.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the Disciplinary Authority was not required to pass a detailed speaking order while punishing the delinquent if they agreed with the finding of the Enquiry Officer's Report. The Court also held that the learned Single Judge was correct in remitting the case back to the Appellate Authority, which could have provided full opportunity to the delinquent to make all his grievances before it and pass an appropriate order on the contention raised by the Appellate Authority.

Issues: 1. Whether the Disciplinary Authority was required to pass a detailed speaking order while punishing the delinquent if they agreed with the finding of the Enquiry Officer's Report? 2. Whether the learned Single Judge was correct in remitting the case back to the Appellate Authority?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Disciplinary Authority was not required to pass a detailed speaking order while punishing the delinquent if they agreed with the finding of the Enquiry Officer's Report. This was based on the interpretation of the Bipartite Settlement, which did not require the Disciplinary Authority to pass a detailed speaking order in such cases. The Court also relied on several Supreme Court decisions which held that it was not necessary for the disciplinary authority to give a detailed reasoned speaking order while punishing the delinquent if they agreed with the finding of the Enquiry Officer's Report. 2. The Court held that the learned Single Judge was correct in remitting the case back to the Appellate Authority, which could have provided full opportunity to the delinquent to make all his grievances before it and pass an appropriate order on the contention raised by the Appellate Authority. The Court noted that the learned Single Judge had set aside the order of the Appellate Authority and remitted the case back to the Appellate Authority where the delinquent could have full opportunity to make all his grievances.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed. The Court directed the petitioner to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority within one month from the date of receipt of the copy of the judgment, and the Appellate Authority was directed to dispose of the appeal of the appellant within two months thereafter after hearing the petitioner.