Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
PARTHA SARATHI CHATTERJEE, J.
Rabi Lochan Ghosh – Appellant
Versus
Paschim Banga Gramin Bank & Ors. – Respondents
WPA 10127 of 2019
Decided on : 20-07-2023
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS - FAIRNESS - CHARGE-SHEET - DOCUMENTS - LIST NOT DISCLOSED - EVIDENCE - DOCUMENTS ADMITTED WITHOUT AUTHENTICATION - ENQUIRY OFFICER'S REPORT - LACK OF REASONS - QUASHING OF CHARGE-SHEET AND ORDER OF PUNISHMENT.
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioner, a former Scale-II officer at Moloypur Branch of Paschim Banga Gramin Bank, challenged the sustainability of the charge-sheet and order of punishment issued against him. The charge-sheet alleged that the petitioner was responsible for the retention of excess cash in the branch, leading to a financial loss of Rs. 31,56,640/- due to theft/burglary. The petitioner argued that the charge-sheet and order of punishment were unsustainable due to non-disclosure of the list of documents and witnesses, admission of documents without authentication, and lack of reasoned findings in the enquiry officer's report.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the disciplinary proceedings were not conducted fairly and the petitioner was prejudiced due to the following reasons: (i) no list of documents and list of witnesses were disclosed in the charge-sheet; (ii) documents were admitted as evidence without being supplied to the petitioner beforehand; and (iii) the enquiry officer's report lacked reasons and did not appreciate the evidence.
Issues: 1. Whether the charge-sheet and order of punishment were sustainable despite the non-disclosure of the list of documents and witnesses? 2. Whether the admission of documents as evidence without authentication and verification violated the principles of natural justice? 3. Whether the enquiry officer's report was valid in the absence of reasoned findings and appreciation of evidence?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. Procedural fairness in a departmental enquiry demands proper disclosure of materials to be used against the delinquent. Non-disclosure and non-supply of documents to the delinquent employee would amount to violation of natural justice. 2. An Enquiry Officer is a quasi-judicial authority, and the enquiry must be conducted fairly, objectively, and not subjectively. The findings of the Enquiry Officer should not be perverse or unreasonable, nor should they be based on conjectures and surmises. 3. The purpose of an enquiry is to unearth the truth, not to establish the charges against the delinquent. The Enquiry Officer must record reasons for arriving at the finding of fact in the context of the statute defining the misconduct.
Final Decision: The court quashed the charge-sheet dated 04.10.2012 and the order of punishment dated 19.03.2014, directing the respondent to release the consequential benefits to the petitioner within 4 weeks from the date of communication of the order.
JUDGMENT :
Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.
1. In invocation of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ petitioner has called in question the sustainability of the charge-sheet vide. no. PGDB/HO/CM/95/12-13 dated 04.10.2012 and order of punishment dated 19.03.2014, both passed by the Chairman & Competent Authority, Paschim Banga Gramin Bank (in short, PBGB).
2. Facts as unfurled in the writ petition are that the petitioner joined as Filed Supervisor in Howrah Gramin Bank on 15.1.1985 and on 1.12.1990, he was promoted to the post of Scale-I Officer and subsequently, he was further promoted to Scale-II Officer.
3. Howrah Gramin Bank, Burdwan Gramin Bank and Mayurakshi Gramin Bank were constituted under the Regional Rural Bank Act, 1976 and by virtue of a notification vide. dated 26.2.2007, issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs ( Banking Divn.), aforesaid three banks were amalgamated to a single bank, namely, PBGB and the service conditions of the Officers and employees of the PBGB were governed by the Paschim Banga Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010.
4. While the writ petitioner was rending his service as Scale-II officer at Moloypur Branch, on 22.8.12 at night, one incident of theft/burglary took place in that branch and on receipt of such information, he rushed to the branch and upon instruction of his superior officers, he lodged an F.I.R. which gave rise to Arambagh P.S. Case no. 595/12 dated 23.8.2012 under Sections 457/380 IPC.
5. On 25.8.2012, the Chairman concerned by issuing one show cause notice sought for explanation for retention of excess cash in Moloypur Branch and the writ petitioner submitted his explanation on 10.09.2012 but by passing an order dated 01.01.2012, the petitioner was placed under suspension.
6. Under a memo. vide. no. 04.10.2012, a charge–sheet containing statement of allegations and articles of charges was issued holding that the explanation and/or reply dated 10.9.2012 was not found satisfactory. The petitioner submitted reply to the charge-sheet on 11.10.2012.
7. On 7.12.2012, 11(eleven) numbers of document were admitted in evidence as Management Exhibits (in short, ME). Although, the Presenting Officer did not produce document no. 11, yet the document no. 11 had been marked as ME-11 and on perusal of the recording of proceedings, the petitioner came to learn that those documents had not been authenticated and/or verified by the respective authors of the documents and on 10.1.2013, the Presenting Officer concerned tendered 13 numbers of documents and in the same manner, those 13 numbers of documents were accepted as evidence and marked as ME 12 to ME 25 and after examination of Management witness (MW-1) was over, he was recalled and re-examined without leave of the Enquiry Officer.
8. However, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 9.2.2013 and on receipt of such report, the petitioner submitted his representation on 27.2.2013 but under a covering letter dated 19.3.2013, an order of punishment dated 19.3.2013 passed by the Chairman & Competent Authority, PBGB was served upon the petitioner. By the order of punishment, the basic pay of the petitioner was reduced by three stages in the time scale of pay of Rs. 31,500/-to Rs. 28,900/-till retirement with further direction that he will not earn any increment of pay during such period of reduction. The petitioner preferred statutory appeal against the order of punishment but the same was dismissed and the order of punishment was upheld. On 28.11.2014, the writ petitioner demitted his office on attaining the age of superannuation.
9. Record reveals that answering respondents filed exception to the writ petition but the writ petitioner did not file any response to that exception.
10. Questioning the defensibility of the charge-sheet and the order of punishment, Mr. Mitra being led by Mr. Saha Roy, learned advocate representing the writ petitione
AI
In a departmental enquiry, fairness in the procedure is a part of the principles of natural justice. Non-disclosure of the list of documents and witnesses, admission of documents without authenticati....
Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to principles of natural justice, including the right to inspect documents and a fair opportunity to defend against charges.
Removal from Service - Committed irregularities - Procedure for imposing major penalties - Power of judicial review available to High Court as also to this Court under Constitution takes in its strid....
The court established that in disciplinary proceedings, the principles of natural justice must be followed, but the court's role is limited to ensuring procedural fairness rather than re-evaluating t....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
