SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Cal) 689

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI
M.V. MURALIDARAN, J.
Saibal Roy – Appellants
Versus
Uttar Banga Kshetriya Gramin Bank & Ors. – Respondents
W.P.A. No. 950 of 2023
Decided on : 25-01-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Indranath Mitra, Mr. Nabankur Paul, Mr. Abhisekh Sarkar,
For the Respondent: Mr. Jayanta Kumar Singh, Mr. Prajwal Gurung,

The importance of following prescribed procedures and principles of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings.

Headnote:

Unauthorized Absence - Employment Dispute - Regulation 2(g), 5(1), 23, 39, 41, 62(d)(iv), 63(2) - The court discussed the charges of unauthorized absence and non-payment of loans, the appointment of Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer, and the violation of service regulations. The court emphasized the importance of following the prescribed procedures and principles of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings and highlighted that the High Court should not re-appreciate the evidence or interfere with the conclusions of the enquiry if conducted in accordance with the law.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, an employee of a bank, challenged the order of removal from service due to unauthorized absence and non-payment of loans. The petitioner had been absent from duty for an extended period due to illness and had failed to repay the loans.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted in accordance with the law and the principles of natural justice. The court emphasized that the High Court should not re-appreciate the evidence or interfere with the conclusions of the enquiry.

Issues: The issues involved unauthorized absence, non-payment of loans, and the adherence to service regulations in conducting disciplinary proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of following prescribed procedures and principles of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings and highlighted that the High Court should not re-appreciate the evidence or interfere with the conclusions of the enquiry if conducted in accordance with the law.

Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded to the petitioner.

JUDGMENT :

M.V. Muralidaran, J.

Challenging the impugned order of punishment of removal from service dated 11.10.2014, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as Cashier cum Clerk in Uttar Banga Kshetriya Gramin Bank (UBKGB) on 26.2.1992. On and from 26.12.2007, the petitioner fell sick and intimated the competent authority. After obtaining fitness certificate dated 9.1.2010, the petitioner requested the Chairman of UBKGB to allow him to join service. Despite receiving the request letter dated 10.1.2010, nothing has been done. On the contrary, on 25.4.2013, a charge sheet was issued by the Chairman in contravention of the provision of Regulation 2(g), 5(1) and 23. A departmental enquiry was commenced and concluded after exchanging the written arguments by the Presenting Officer and the petitioner and findings of the Enquiry Officer was served on the petitioner. The petitioner replied on the findings of the Enquiry Officer and thereafter, proposed punishment order was served upon the petitioner. On receipt of the proposed punishment order, the petitioner submitted his written submission before the Chairman for consideration. Since the petitioner was not allowed to join, the petitioner had filed WPA No.27671 of 2022 before this Court which was subsequently transferred to the Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri and renumbered as WPA No.37 of 2023. On 6.1.2023, the said writ petition was dismissed with an observation that if the petitioner desires to challenge the administrative order dated 11.10.2014, he can do so in accordance with law. Accordingly, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

3. The respondents filed affidavit-in-opposition stating that while working as Office Assistant, Darjeeling Judge Bazar Branch of the UBKGB, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice for his absence from the branch since 26.12.2007 to 10.12.2012 without having proper permission. The petitioner was considered to have the habit of remaining absent for long period without obtaining any prior permission from his higher authority. On 17.12.2012, the petitioner replied to the show cause notice where he failed to justify his leave of absence. Thereafter, on 15.3.2013, a second show cause notice was served upon the petitioner calling for an explanation as to why disciplinary action should not be initiated against him. The petitioner has submitted his explanation dated 28.3.2013 without any justification against his leave of absence. Finding the reply of the petitioner unsatisfactory, proposed to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner and the petitioner was served with a charge sheet dated 25.4.2013 as per Regulation Nos.18, 23 and 24 of Uttar Banga Kshetriya Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010 attracting penalties under Regulation 39. In exercise of power conferred under Regulation 41, the respondent bank appointed Sri Anoj Kumar Roy, Branch Manager of Salugara Branch as an Enquiry Officer and after concluding the disciplinary proceeding, the Enquiry Officer submitted his findings dated 23.6.2014. Upon considering the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the argument of the Presenting Officer as well as the petitioner, the disciplinary authority concluded that charge nos.(i) and (ii) were proved against the petitioner. Before infliction of any punishment, for the sake of natural justice, the petitioner was given a fair chance for hearing wherein the proposed punishment was conveyed through an order dated 13.8.2014, against which, the petitioner has filed review petition. However, he has not shown any interest to know the outcome of the review petition. After considering the review petition, final order dated 11.10.2014 was passed against the petitioner wherein he was found guilty of the charges and removed him from service and the said order was duly communicated to the petitioner. However, the same was returned to the bank with a post

              Click Here to Read the rest of this document
              1
              2
              3
              4
              5
              6
              7
              8
              9
              10
              11
              SupremeToday Portrait Ad
              supreme today icon
              logo-black

              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

              qr

              Scan Me!

              India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

              For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

              whatsapp-icon Back to top