Back
2024 Supreme(Cal) 1096
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
DEBANGSU BASAK, MD. SHABBAR RASHIDI, JJ.
Chandra Sekhar Pal – Appellant
Versus
UCO Bank & Ors. – Respondents
M.A.T. 949 of 2024, IA No. CAN/1 Of 2024
Decided On : 29-07-2024
For the Appellant :Mr. Sujit Lal Sircar, Advocate
For the Respondent/UCO Bank: Mr. Victor Chatterjee, Adv., Mr. Sourjya Roy, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that pension regulations require quantification of loss for penalties and affirm the right to appeal against disciplinary actions.
Headnote:
Regulation - Pension - UCO Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulation, 1995 - The court interpreted regulations regarding pension withholding and recovery, emphasizing the need for quantification of loss and the right to appeal against disciplinary actions.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a retired bank manager, faced disciplinary action for alleged dereliction of duty leading to financial loss. After an inquiry, a penalty was imposed, deducting 20% from his pension. The appellant contested the lack of opportunity to present a defense and the absence of quantification of the alleged loss.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the disciplinary authority failed to provide a fair opportunity for the appellant to defend himself and that the appeal against the penalty was improperly dismissed due to a misinterpretation of the regulations.
Issues: Whether the appellant was denied a fair hearing in the disciplinary proceedings and whether he had the right to appeal against the penalty imposed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the regulations allow for an appeal against disciplinary actions and that the lack of quantification of loss undermined the validity of the penalty imposed.
Result: The court set aside the dismissal of the appeal and directed the appellate authority to hear the appellant's case.
JUDGMENT :
(Debangsu Basak, J.) :
1. The appeal is at the behest the writ petitioner and directed against the order dated March 13, 2024 passed in W.P.A. 4681 of 2023.
2. By the impugned order, learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition of the appellant.
3. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, the appellant superannuated from service on June 30, 2018. A memorandum was issued to the appellant on December 6, 2019 alleging dereliction of duty causing financial loss to the bank during the period of employment of the appellant.
4. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, an enquiry proceeding was held. He refers to the minutes of the enquiry proceedings dated March 19, 2020, where documents on behalf of the management were produced. He submits that, no prosecution witness was examined in chief. Appellant was not permitted to produce defence documents or defence witness. Appellant was not permitted to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses.
5. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant refers to the letter dated September 2, 2020 issued by the management, where the appellant was asked to submit written submissions, which the appellant complied with. He submits that, no further enquiry proceeding was held. An enquiry report was prepared. Thereafter, on the basis of such enquiry report dated September 23, 2020, appellant was asked to submit a response thereto.
6. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant submits that, appellant was served with an order passed by the disciplinary authority dated February 11, 2021. He refers to the order of punishment imposed, which is recovery @ 20% of the pension amount receivable by the appellant.
7. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant refers to the UCO Bank (Employees’) Pension Regulation, 1995 and in particular to regulation 43 and 48 thereof. He submits that, the appellant is entitled to prefer an appeal since an order of punishment was imposed under regulation 43. He submits that, appellant filed an appeal on March 3, 2022. Such appeal was sought to be disposed of by a writing dated April 8, 2021 on the ground that there was no provision under the Regulations of 1995 for preferring an appeal against the order of the competent authority.
8. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant draws the attention of the Court to the order of punishment dated February 11, 2021. He submits that, extraneous matters were taken consideration for the purpose of arriving at the decision to impose punishment Moreover, quantification of the loss allegedly caused by the appellant to the bank was not made for the disciplinary authority to impose the punishment of deduction of 20% of the pension amount. Without quantification of the loss, the order of punishment is open ended, uncertain and incapable of being made certain
9. Learned advocate appearing for the appellant relies upon 1995 Supp (3) Supreme Court Cases 212 [S.C. Girotra versus United Commercial Bank (UCO Bank) & Ors.] in support of the contention that, the management is guilty of breach of principles of natural justice and therefore, the disciplinary proceeding should be set aside.
10. Learned advocate appearing for the bank submits that, bank followed the provisions of Regulation of 1995 with regard to the disciplinary proceeding against the appellant. He submits that, despite two opportunities being granted during the enquiry, the appellant did not produce any defence document or defence witness. A last opportunity to do so was provided by the letter dated September 2, 2020. Appellant did not produce any defence document or defence witness at the enquiry despite such opportunities being granted.
11. Learned advocate appearing for the bank submits that, the enquiry officer proceeded on the basis of the materials on record and submitted his enquiry report. Such enquiry report was considered by the disciplinary authority and a decision to impose punishment was taken and communicated by the letter da
