Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
T.S. SIVAGNANAM, HIRANMAY BHATTACHARYYA, JJ.
Punjab National Bank And Ors. – Appellant
Versus
Raghunath Karfa And Ors. – Respondents
APOT 80 of 2019, IA NO. GA 2 of 2021
Decided on : 12-07-2023
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK - DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDING - Loss of Forum - Disciplinary Authority - Review Authority - Scope of Judicial Review - Misconduct - Negligence - Proportionality of Punishment: 1. A reviewing authority cannot usurp the functions of the disciplinary authority by issuing the show cause notice, leading to the loss of the review forum. 2. In a disciplinary proceeding, the charges must be proved with a preponderance of probability, and the Enquiry Officer cannot travel beyond the charges or consider irrelevant facts. 3. Negligence does not amount to misconduct, and an error of judgment, per se, is not misconduct. 4. The punishment of compulsory retirement was shockingly disproportionate and discriminatory in the instant case, considering other officers were subjected to disciplinary proceedings but only the petitioner received such a severe punishment.
Fact of the Case:
The Punjab National Bank initiated disciplinary proceedings against the respondent, a senior manager, for alleged dereliction of duties while recommending, sanctioning, and disbursing transport loans. A show cause notice was issued, followed by a chargesheet containing the same charges as in the show cause notice. The Enquiry Officer found certain charges partially or fully proved and held that the bank suffered financial loss due to the respondent's actions. The disciplinary authority imposed compulsory retirement, which was affirmed by the appellate authority.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated due to procedural infractions and that the evidence returned by the Enquiry Officer was contrary to the evidence produced in the enquiry. It held that the respondent suffered a loss of forum as the show cause notice was issued by the reviewing authority, which resulted in the closure of the review forum under Regulation 18 of the Appeal Regulations.
Issues: 1. Whether the respondent suffered a loss of forum due to the issuance of the show cause notice by the reviewing authority? 2. Whether the charges against the respondent were proved in the disciplinary proceedings? 3. Whether the punishment of compulsory retirement was proportionate to the proven misconduct?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on the decision in State of Punjab vs. Hari Kishan Sharma, where the Supreme Court held that the appellate authority cannot oust the licensing authority and itself usurp its functions. In the instant case, the review authority issued the show cause notice, which was a function of the disciplinary authority, leading to the loss of the review forum for the respondent. 2. The court referred to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Narinder Mohan Arya and Roop Singh Negi, emphasizing that the charges in a disciplinary proceeding must be proved with a preponderance of probability, and the Enquiry Officer cannot travel beyond the charges or consider irrelevant facts. 3. The court held that the alleged act of the respondent can be said to be that of negligence but does not amount to misconduct. It relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Inspector Prem Chand, which held that negligence simplicitor would not be misconduct.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge, which had set aside all the proceedings and orders connected to the disciplinary proceeding.
JUDGMENT :
Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J.
1. This appeal is at the instance of the Punjab National Bank (for short “the Bank”) and its General Manager challenging a judgment and order dated 17.05.2019 passed by a learned Single Judge in WP 891 of 2016.
2. By the judgment and order impugned, all proceedings and orders connected to the disciplinary proceeding was set aside with a direction to reinstate the writ petitioner in service with all past and present benefits.
3. The writ petitioner/respondent no. 1 herein while working as a Senior Manager, Khagra (Berhampore) Branch of the Bank was served with a show cause notice dated 08.04.2015 alleging dereliction of duties while he was posted as a Senior Manager at Dankuni Branch of the said Bank. The respondent no. 1 was served with a show cause notice dated 08.04.2015 alleging that the said respondent while recommending, sanctioning and disbursing transport loans from the Dankuni branch during the period of 01.12.2011 to 31.07.2013 exposed the bank to financial loss. After a lapse of yearly six months chargesheet was issued containing the same charges as that in the show cause notice and also that all the loans have turned NPA and the lapses on the part of the respondent no. 1 have exposed the Bank to the financial loss of Rs. 1062.24 lacs plus applicable interest thereon.
4. The respondent no. 1 who is the Chargesheeted Officer (for short “CSO”) replied to the show cause notice on 15.05.2015. In the reply to the chargesheet the CSO reiterated his reply to the show cause notice.
5. The Enquiry Officer after holding enquiry submitted his report on 12.04.2016 holding that charge nos. A-1 and A-3 as partially proved and charge nos. A-2, B-1, B-2 and B-3 as fully proved. The Enquiry Officer further held that loss to bank also stands proved.
6. The disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement which was affirmed by the appellate authority.
7. The CSO challenged the order of compulsory retirement passed in the disciplinary proceeding by filing the writ petition which was ultimately allowed by the impugned judgment and order.
8. Being aggrieved by the order setting aside all proceedings and order connected to the disciplinary proceeding and the direction to reinstate the respondent no. 1 in service, the Bank and its General Manager have approached this Court by filing this intra court appeal.
9. Ms. Roy Chowdhury the learned advocate appearing in support of appeal sought to justify the delay in issuance of the show cause notice by contending that the same was issued after the loan accounts have been classified as a non-performing asset (for short “NPA”) and after it was found that the credit facilities have been sanctioned by the respondent no. 1 by transgressing his limits. She further submitted that the respondent no. 1 cannot have any reasons to feel aggrieved by the single day enquiry as he was given full opportunity to defend his case. She further contended that since the reply to the show cause notice was found to be not satisfactory, same allegations have been leveled against the respondent no. 1 in the chargesheet. Ms. Roy Chowdhury attacked the finding of the learned Single Judge on the issue as to loss of forum by contending that the right to pray for review is not absolute but depends upon fulfillment of the conditions laid down in Regulation 18 of the United Bank of India Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations 1976 (for short “the Appeal Regulations”). She further alleged that the respondent no. 1 cannot allege loss of forum as it is not the case of the respondent no. 1 that he is in possession of new material or evidence which could not be produced or was not available at the time of passing order under review. She further submitted that it has been proved in the enquiry that the respondent no. 1 is guilty of misconduct under Regulation 24 of the United Bank of India Officer Employees’ (Conduct Regulations 1976 (for short “the Conduct Regulations”)
The court reiterated the well-settled proposition of law that negligence does not amount to misconduct and that the punishment of compulsory retirement in the instant case was shockingly disproportio....
Disciplinary proceedings against a retired bank officer can proceed if initiated prior to retirement, identifying lapses in loan sanctioning as misconduct warranting penalties.
Disciplinary proceedings against bank employees must adhere to established regulations, and decisions upheld by the appellate authority are not subject to re-evaluation by the High Court unless deeme....
The court emphasized the bank's loss of confidence in the appellant and upheld the punishment of compulsory retirement, citing the appellant's failure to follow banking procedures and exercise honest....
The court established that an employee must be given a chance to respond to an enquiry officer's findings before a disciplinary authority makes a decision, as a matter of natural justice.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for reasons in the decision-making process, adherence to the principles of natural justice, and the limited scope of judicial revie....
Disciplinary proceedings were upheld as valid; delay and procedural flaws were insufficient to overturn dismissal for misconduct.
The power of judicial review, of the Constitutional Courts, is an evaluation of the decision-making process and not the merits of the decision itself. It is to ensure fairness in treatment and not to....
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
