Back
2020 Supreme(Cal) 472
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
SAMAPTI CHATTERJEE, MANOJIT MANDAL, JJ.
Smti. Sonamuthu Vellammal – Appellant
Versus
The Chief General Manager & Others – Respondents
M.A No. 013 of 2019 In connection with W.P300/2017/CAN No.005 of 2017/CAN 037 of 2018
Decided on : 05-02-2020.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent:Ms. Anjili Nag, Advocate
The court emphasized the importance of providing adequate opportunity of hearing in disciplinary proceedings and upheld the validity of the punishment imposed in accordance with the relevant clause of the Memorandum of Settlement.
Headnote:
Opportunity of Hearing - Disciplinary Proceedings - Memorandum of Settlement Clause 5(j), Clause 6(b)
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a bank employee, was accused of stealing a large sum of money and was subjected to disciplinary proceedings resulting in her removal from service. She challenged the punishment on the grounds of procedural irregularities and violation of natural justice.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant was given adequate opportunity of hearing and that the punishment of removal from service was imposed in accordance with the relevant clause of the Memorandum of Settlement, without putting any stigma on her future career.
Issues: Procedural irregularities, violation of natural justice, opportunity of hearing
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant was given sufficient opportunity of hearing and that the punishment imposed was in line with the relevant clause of the Memorandum of Settlement.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed without any order as to costs.
JUDGMENT :
Samapti Chatterjee, J.
1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 8th March, 2019 passed in W.P. No.300 of 2017 the appellant has preferred the instant appeal.
2. The fact of the case in a nutshell is as follows :-
The petitioner was appointed as a sweeper under the respondent bank on part time basis on 9th September, 1992. After continuous working for seven years she was confirmed as a permanent staff and subsequently she was promoted to the post of peon. Meanwhile the appellant was posted at Port Blair branch of the said respondent/bank. On 16th October, 2015 after the appellant returned home from her duty some of the officials of the bank came to her house to conduct a search and seizure proceedings and collected a bag containing rupees one lakh in cash. Accordingly on 17th October, 2015 the appellant/petitioner was placed under suspension.
After gathering such information a complaint was lodged against her by one Ravi Raju the cashier of the bank interaila stating that the appellant has stolen one packet of rupees one thousand denomination currency note containing 1000 pieces of one hundred rupee notes which accumulated to a total sum of rupees one lakh. The said Ravi Raju with the help of CCTV footage found some abnormal behaviour of the appellant/petitioner. Accordingly a cloud of doubt occurred to his mind that the appellant stole the said amount. As a result thereby with the prior permission of Assistant General Manager the said Ravi Raju along with other officers including Branch Manager visited the house of the appellant and on spot recovered the entire amount.
Vide letter dated 16th October, 2015 the appellant informed Assistant Manager of the bank thus mentioning interalia that due to some bonafide mistake she took rupees one lakh from Ravi Raju though she admitted that she committed that offence in an unconscious state of mind. On 19th March, 2016 the appellant was instructed to explain within three days with sufficient reason why she has stolen the aforesaid amount. Accordingly on 31st May, a chargesheet was issued against the appellant/petitioner under Clause 5 (j) of the memorandum of settlement dated 10th April, 2002 on disciplinary action and procedure for workmen staff. On 12th July, 2016 the petitioner was also advised to submit her reply within seven days.
Vide memo dated 18th July, 2016 the appellant was informed that departmental enquiry will be held and the name and designation of the enquiry officer was also mentioned in the said letter. The appellant was further informed that if she wanted to engage defense counsel particulars of the same should be forwarded to the Enquiry Officer in advance. She was also informed that she may contest her case either personally or through a representative of the bank or any other registered union of bank employees. Through a letter dated 5th August, 2016 posted on 9th August, 2016 the appellant informed the respondent/bank regarding the details of her defense counsel namely Sri A.K. Paul, Senior Prosecutor (Retired). The appellant was replied by the banks letter dated 19th August, 2016 thereby intimated that in a departmental enquiry a charged employee is not allowed to engage a testimony as Defense counsel. Vide a letter dated 23rd August, 2016 the appellant was informed that preliminary hearing of the enquiry will be held on 29th August, 2016 and she was requested to attend the hearing with her defense counsel.
It was also informed that in case of absence of the appellant the proceeding would be held ex parte. The appellant vide a letter dated 25th August, 2016 informed the Enquiry Officer that she is a Group-D employee with education upto Class-VIII in Tamil medium having no knowledge of English. On the date of preliminary enquiry the appellant attended the said enquiry and submitted that she will appoint one Sri Sudip Dutta Senior Assistant Manager posted at SBI Kolkata main branch to act as her defense counsel and who will be availab
