Back
2016 Supreme(Cal) 472
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Debi Prosad Dey, J.
Nibir Chand Karan - Petitioner
Versus
Paschim Banga Gramin Bank & Ors. - Respondents
W.P. No.18941(W) of 2012
Decided on : 05-10-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. M. R. Sarbadhikari
For the Respondents: Mr.C.R. Bakshi
The court reiterated the settled principle of law that the writ court cannot usurp the jurisdiction of the appellate authority against the decision of the disciplinary authority unless the procedure adopted by the disciplinary authority is patently illegal and contrary to the principle of natural justice.
Headnote:
PENALTY AGAINST BANK OFFICER - REDUCTION IN GRADE/POST - VIOLATION OF REGULATIONS - RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT OF REGULATIONS - PROPORTIONALITY OF PUNISHMENT - SERVICE TERMINATION IN SEPARATE PROCEEDING - COURT'S JURISDICTION TO REVIEW DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS - NATURAL JUSTICE - FINANCIAL LOSS TO BANK.
Fact of the Case:
An employee of Paschim Banga Gramin Bank challenged the disciplinary proceedings and penalty imposed on him for violating regulations 17 and 19 of the Paschim Banga Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulation, 2007. The charges against the petitioner related to omissions and commissions in the bank's advance portfolio during his tenure as Branch Manager. The disciplinary authority found him guilty and imposed a penalty of reduction in grade/post. The petitioner appealed to the appellate authority, which reduced the penalty. The petitioner contended that the penalty was disproportionate to the charges, the disciplinary proceedings were flawed, and the retrospective application of the 2010 regulations was illegal.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner failed to show any violation of natural justice in the disciplinary proceedings. It found that the penalty imposed was not shockingly disproportionate to the charges and was justified considering the financial loss suffered by the bank. The court also held that the retrospective application of the 2010 regulations was permissible under Regulation 77(2) of the 2010 regulations.
Issues: 1. Whether the penalty imposed on the petitioner was disproportionate to the charges leveled against him? 2. Whether the disciplinary proceedings were flawed and violated the principles of natural justice? 3. Whether the retrospective application of the 2010 regulations was illegal?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the penalty imposed on the petitioner was not shockingly disproportionate to the charges leveled against him. It considered the financial loss suffered by the bank due to the petitioner's actions and the fact that the appellate authority had reduced the penalty. 2. The court found no violation of natural justice in the disciplinary proceedings. It noted that the petitioner was assisted by a competent person of his choice, was given sufficient opportunities to defend his case, and was heard by both the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority. 3. The court held that the retrospective application of the 2010 regulations was permissible under Regulation 77(2) of the 2010 regulations, which provided that any order made or action taken under the repealed provisions would be deemed to have been made or taken under the 2010 regulations.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, finding no merit in the petitioner's contentions.
1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, who is an employee of the Paschim Banga Gramin Bank, praying for issuance of direction for setting aside the order impugned passed by the Chairman and Disciplinary Authority(Competent Authority) in his letter being no. PBGB/HO/CM/37/2011-12 dated 26/07/2011 being annexure P-5 and the report of the enquiry proceedings submitted by the enquiry officer dated 02.03.2011 communicated to the petitioner by letter no. PBOB/HO/CN/06/2011-12 dated 04.05.2011 of the Chairman of the Disciplinary Authority being annexure no. P3 along with the order of appellate authority vide annexure P-7.
2. The petitioner is an employee of Paschim Banga Gramin bank and has been serving in the post of officer, Paschim Banga Gramin Bank, Hatbasudevpur branch at the time of filing the writ petition. The petitioner joined in service in Howrah Gramin Bank on the 22nd Day of September, 1986 and thereafter he was promoted as branch manager on 07.01.1987. The petitioner thereafter served the bank in its various branches and ultimately promoted to grade of officer MMG-II on and from 1.7.2000 and assumed charge of the office as branch manager of Nizbalia Branch in the district of Howrah. The petitioner was served with a charge sheet by letter no. PBOB/HO/CM/157/2007-08 dated 27.01.2009 along with statement of allegations. The petitioner duly submitted written statement against such charge sheet and enquiry officer was appointed to conduct the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner.
3. On receipt of the report from the enquiry officer, the chairman and disciplinary authority sought for the petitioners comments against the report of enquiry officers. The chairman and disciplinary authority after considering the report of enquiry officer as well as the reply of the petitioner has imposed the major penalty against your petitioner as follows:-
(a) As against Charge No.1
Reduction to lower grade/Post i.e. OJM Scale with initial basic Pay.
(b) As against Charge No.2
Reduction to lower grade/Post i.e. OJM, Scale with initial Basic pay.
4. It is needless to say that the petitioner was found guilty in both the charges by the enquiry officer and the chairman and disciplinary authority accordingly imposed punishment upon the petitioner taking into consideration the reply submitted by the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that the enquiring authority has failed to appreciate the evidence on record and the submissions of the writ petitioner in respect of the article of charges and thereby erroneously found the writ petitioner guilty of both the charges. The further case of the petitioner is that the charges against the petitioner were not conclusively proved and thereby the enquiry officer could not appreciate the case of the petitioner in its true perspective.
5. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of the chairman and disciplinary authority(competent authority) which was communicated to the petitioner, an appeal under regulation 49 of the Paschim Banga Gramin bank(officers and employees) service regulations 2010 was preferred before the appellate authority(Board of directors of the Paschim Banga Gramin Bank). The appellate authority after the lapse of 10 months and on consideration of the present status of the related accounts took a lenient view in the matter and the penalty imposed was reduced as follows:-
Charge No.1 – The penalty which was awarded by the Competent Authority which was a reduction to a lower grade/post i.e. OJM Scale with initial basic pay was reduced by the Appellate Authority to reduction in Basic Pay to initial Basic Pay of MMGS-II i.e. Rs.19,400/-
Charge No.2 – The penalty which was awarded by the Competent Authority which was a reduction to a lower grade/post i.e. OJM Scale with initial basic pay was reduced by t
