Back
2019 Supreme(Cal) 712
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA (PORT BLAIR BENCH)
AMRITA SINHA, J.
Smt. Sonamuthu Vellammal — Appellant
Versus
Chief General Manager — Respondent
W.P. No. 300 of 2017
Decided on : 08-03-2019
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar, adv
For the Respondent:Mrs. Anjili Nag, Advocate
The court's decision emphasized the importance of following the principles of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings and upheld the punishment imposed on the petitioner for gross misconduct.
Headnote:
Natural Justice - Disciplinary Proceeding - Memorandum of Settlement - [Gross Misconduct] - [Clause 5(j) of the Memorandum of Settlement] - The court discussed the violation of natural justice, procedural irregularities, and the punishment imposed on the petitioner. The court found the petitioner guilty of gross misconduct under clause 5(j) of the Memorandum of Settlement and dismissed the case.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an employee of a bank, was accused of stealing money from the bank and was subsequently removed from service. The petitioner challenged the removal primarily on the ground of procedural irregularities and violation of natural justice.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the petitioner guilty of gross misconduct and dismissed the case, stating that the disciplinary authority had given the petitioner several opportunities to defend herself and had followed the principles of natural justice.
Issues: Procedural irregularities, violation of natural justice, and the proportionality of the punishment imposed on the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the finding that the disciplinary authority had followed the principles of natural justice and had given the petitioner ample opportunities to defend herself.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the case, stating that the punishment imposed on the petitioner was justified and there were no procedural lapses in the disciplinary proceeding.
JUDGMENT :
Amrita Sinha, J.
The order dated 19th January, 2017 passed by the Regional Manager and Appointing Authority in a disciplinary proceeding removing the petitioner from service and the order dated 17th April, 2017 passed by the appellate authority affirming the order of the disciplinary authority are impugned in the instant writ petition.
2. The petitioner has prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus setting aside the order of the disciplinary authority as well as the order of the appellate authority and reinstatement in service along with all consequential benefits.
3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-
The petitioner was appointed as a sweeper under the respondent bank on part time basis on 09th September, 1992. After working continuously for several years she was appointed on regular basis and later on promoted to the post of peon.
4. During her posting at Port Blair branch of the respondent bank on 16th October, 2015 after the petitioner returned home from her duty some of the officials of the bank went to her house allegedly for a search and got a bag containing rupees one lakh in cash.
5. On 17th October, 2015 the petitioner was put under suspension.
6. The petitioner came to learn that a complaint was lodged against her by Ravi Raju, the cashier of the bank alleging that she has stolen one packet of rupees one thousand denomination currency note containing hundred pieces amounting to rupees one lakh. The said Ravi Raju with the help of CCTV footage found some abnormal behaviour of the petitioner and suspected that she stole the money. With the permission of the Assistant General Manager the said Ravi Raju along with a few other officers of the bank including the Manager Branch Operations visited the house of the petitioner and recovered the entire sum.
7. By a letter dated 16th October, 2015 the petitioner informed the Assistant Manager of the bank that absent mindedly she took rupees one lakh from R. Raju. She admitted that she committed the mistake in a conscious state of mind.
8. Vide a letter dated 19th March, 2016 the petitioner was instructed to explain with sufficient evidence on the charge of stealing the aforesaid sum within three days.
9. Vide a memo dated 31st May, 2016 a charge sheet was issued against the petitioner indicating that she has been found prima facie liable for committing acts of misconduct under clause 5(j) of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 10th April, 2002 on Disciplinary Action and Procedure for Workmen Staff. She was advised to submit her reply within seven days.
10. Vide a memo dated 12th July, 2016 the petitioner was informed that a departmental inquiry into the charges framed against her will be held. The name and designation of the Inquiry Officer was mentioned in the said letter. The petitioner was further informed that if she wanted to engage a defense counsel the particulars were to be forwarded to the Inquiry Officer sufficiently early to verify the credentials of the representative, if necessary. It was also mentioned that the petitioner may place her case either personally or through a representative of the bank or any other registered union of bank employees. The Inquiry Officer vide a letter dated 20th July, 2016 requested the petitioner to inform the name of the defense counsel within 27th July, 2016.
11. The petitioner through a letter dated 05th August, 2016 posted on 09th August, 2016 informed the bank the details of her defense counsel Shri A.K.Paul, Sr. Private Secretary (retd) . The bank replied by a letter dated 19th August, 2016 intimating the petitioner that in a departmental inquiry a charged employee is not allowed to engage an outsider as defense counsel/representative.
12. By a letter dated 23rd August, 2016 the petitioner was informed that a preliminary hearing of the inquiry will be held on 29th August, 2016 and she was requested to attend the hearing with her defense counsel. It was informed that in case of absence the proceeding will be held exparte.
