Back
2002 Supreme(Cal) 690
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
M.H.S. Ansari, J.
Narayan Chandra Das
vs.
Sagar Gramin Bank & Ors.
C.O. No. 8397 (W) of 1996
Decided On : November 11, 2002
B.R. Neogi, Tapan Sarkar for the appellant;
Souvik Nandi, Soumya Ghosh for the respondent.
The disciplinary authority and the appellate authority are required to pass reasoned speaking orders in disciplinary proceedings. The orders should disclose that the contentions raised by the delinquent employee have been considered.
Headnote:
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE - SERVICE REGULATION - SAGAR GRAMIM BANK (STAFF) SERVICE REGULATION, 1980 - SECTION 19(3) - Employee's right to a reasoned speaking order in disciplinary proceedings. - The disciplinary authority and the appellate authority are required to pass reasoned speaking orders in disciplinary proceedings. The order should disclose that the contentions raised by the delinquent employee have been considered.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an employee of Sagar Gramin Bank, was placed under suspension and issued a charge sheet for alleged misconduct. The petitioner challenged the charge sheet for vagueness and non-supply of documents. The court directed the bank to redress the grievances of the petitioner and supply the documents. A fresh charge sheet was issued, and disciplinary proceedings were conducted. The disciplinary authority proposed to demote the petitioner from the post of Officer to Field Supervisor. The petitioner filed a writ application, and the court restrained the bank from giving effect to the show cause notice. The bank filed an appeal, and the Division Bench directed the bank to consider the petitioner's reply to the second show cause notice and pass a reasoned order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority did not pass reasoned speaking orders in the disciplinary proceedings. The orders did not disclose that the contentions raised by the petitioner were considered. The court held that the impugned orders were unsustainable.
Issues: 1. Whether the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority are required to pass reasoned speaking orders in disciplinary proceedings. 2. Whether the impugned orders were sustainable.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority are required to pass reasoned speaking orders in disciplinary proceedings. The orders should disclose that the contentions raised by the delinquent employee have been considered. In the present case, the impugned orders did not meet this requirement and were, therefore, unsustainable.
Final Decision: The court quashed and set aside the impugned orders passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority. The court granted liberty to the disciplinary authority to pass a reasoned speaking order after taking into consideration the representation already filed by the petitioner. The court also directed that the service of the petitioner shall be subject to the orders that may be passed by the disciplinary authority.
M.H.S. Ansari, J.
Petitioner while working as Branch Manager of Chhotomollakhali Branch is said to have committed certain misconducts and in relation whereto petitioner was placed under suspension by an order dated December 2, 1987 and a charge sheet dated March 8, 1988 was issued being Annuexure 'B' to the writ application. Petitioner filed a writ application which was disposed of by an order dated July 30, 1991 by his Lordship Mahitosh Majumdar. The ground of challenge was inter alia that the charge sheet suffers from vagueness and that the petitioner had not been supplied with document. The Court by its aforesaid order dated July 30, 1991 observed that the enquiry proceedings shall not be commenced without supplying the documents and it was further directed that the respondent authorities before commencing disciplinary proceedings shall redress the grievance of the petitioner as to vagueness of the charge. Pursuant to the said order a charge sheet dated November 26, 1991 was issued being Annexure 'D' and additionally another charge sheet dated June 19, 1993 was issued being Annexure 'E'. Pursuant to the said charge sheet disciplinary proceedings were conducted and the disciplinary authority issued a show cause notice dated December 22, 1993 being Annexure 'J' proposing the imposition of punishment of degrading the petitioner from the post of Officer to the post of Field Supervisor. Petitioner filed a writ application and D.K. Basu, J. passed an interim order dated January 11, 1994 restraining the respondents from giving effect to the said show cause notice dated December 22, 1993. Aggrieved against the same, respondent-Bank preferred an appeal which was marked as F.M.A.T. 369 of 1994 and was disposed of by the Division Bench presided over by B.P. Banerjee, J. by order dated February 7, 1995 with directions as under :
"The concerned authority of the appellant will be at liberty to proceed afresh after considering the respondent petitioner's reply to the second show cause notice. The appellant Bank will fix a date for reply to the second show cause notice and the reply will be considered by the appropriate authority in accordance with law. The respondent/ petitioner may make representation before the appropriate authority for payment of arrear salaries due and such representation, if made, will be, considered by the Bank in accordance with law. Such representation, if made, should be disposed of by the appellant Bank in accordance with law as early as possible preferably within eight weeks from the date of representation."
2. Pursuant to the said orders the disciplinary authority by its letter dated March 29, 1995 directed the petitioner to submit his written representation afresh against the proposed punishment order (second show cause notice dated December 22, 1993).
3. The disciplinary authority by its impugned order dated April 15, 1995 modified the punishment proposed in the show cause notice and passed the following order;
"..... Sri Das again submitted an application on 17.4.95 to extend the date of submission of representation for seven days. I, the competent authority, extended the date of representation upto 20.4.95. Sri Das accordingly submitted the another representation dated 20.4.95.
The competent authority after carefully going through the entire matter and considering all aspects feels to modify the proposed punishment order and make the following final order by virtue of power conferred upon him by the provisions of Sagar Graimin Bank (Staff) Service Regulation, 1980.
1. Sri Das is degraded in the initial stage of pay scale of officer of the Bank.
2. The period of suspension of Sri Das will be treated as period not spent on duty."
4. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner which was disposed of by impugned order dated October 20, 1995 which was communicated to the petitioner by office order dated August 4, 1995. The relevant portion of the order passed by the Appeal Board reads as under;
"The members of the B
