IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that failure to adhere to procedural requirements in disciplinary proceedings, particularly regarding document production, constitutes a breach of natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

DEBANGSU BASAK, J. :

1. Appellant has assailed the judgment and order dated May 21, 2024 passed by the learned single judge in WPO No. 401 of 2012.

2. By the impugned judgment and order learned single judge has dismissed the writ petition of the appellant challenging a decision arrived at against the appellant in the disciplinary proceedings.

3. Learned senior advocate appearing for the appellant has contended that, there have been serious breach of the principles of natural justice so far as the appellant is concerned, in the disciplinary proceeding resulting in prejudice to the appellant. In support of such contention, he has drawn the attention of the court to the chargesheet issued as against the appellant. He has contended that, in the disciplinary proceeding, appellant requested for specified documents. He has referred to regulation 6 of the service regulations governing the disciplinary proceedings. He has contended that, request for documents had been wrongfully turned down resulting in prejudice to the appellant. In this regard, he has referred to the correspondence of the appellant and the response of the enquiry officer. He has also referred to Regulation 6 (11) of the Canara Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 in this regard and contended that, the inquiring authority did not adhere to the procedure prescribed for grant of requested documents to the appellant resulting in breach of principles of natural justice and serious prejudice to the appellant.

4. Learned senior advocate appearing for the appellant has referred to the enquiry report. He has also drawn the attention of the court to the 2nd show cause notice issued to the appellant as also the response of the appellant thereto.

5. Learned senior advocate appearing for the appellant has drawn the attention of the court to the order of the disciplinary authority dated November 26, 2008. He has contended that, the same does not contain any reason as to why the disciplinary authority arrived at the finding of guilt as against the appellant. Points that the appellant had raised in the response to the 2nd show cause notice have not been dealt with by the disciplinary authority in the order dated November 26, 2008.

6. Learned senior advocate appearing for the appellant has submitted that, after the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement, appellant by a letter dated May 11, 2009 filed an appeal to the appellate authority under Regulation 17 of the Canara Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 with a prayer for condonation of the delay. The appellant had by a letter dated July 8, 2009 requested for terminal dues without prejudice to the rights and contentions in the appeal. Canara Bank had by a letter dated August 4, 2009 has observed that, in view of the financial loss caused to the bank by the appellant the gratuity and the bank’s contribution of provident fund have been impounded.

7. Learned senior advocate appearing for the appellant has contended that, in the chargesheet, no charge had been framed as against the appellant for alleged financial loss nor has any figure of loss allegedly caused by the appellant to the bank, quantified during the disciplinary proceedings. He has referred to the order of the appellate authority and contended that, the appellate authority also did not quantify any loss to have been suffered by the bank. Therefore, according to him, no amount receivable by the appellant on compulsory termination of services can be withheld by the bank. According to him, causing of loss has not been alleged in the chargesheet. During the enquiry proceedings, no attempt had been made by the bank to quantify the alleged loss. Neither the disciplinary authority nor the appellate authority has quantified the alleged loss allegedly caused by the appellant to the bank. Therefore, withholding of service benefits on compulsory retirement is wrong.

8. Learned advocate appearing