Back
High Court Of Delhi
KRISHAN DEV PURI - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA - Respondent
Decided On : 04/20/1983
PUNITIVE DISCHARGE - BANK EMPLOYEE - PUNISHMENT OF DISCHARGE - CIRCULAR OF BANK - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - DOMESTIC ENQUIRY - VALIDITY OF DISCHARGE ORDER - JUDICIAL REVIEW.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, an employee of Punjab National Bank, was discharged from service for writing threatening letters to his superiors. The appellant challenged the discharge order, arguing that it was a punishment and not a discharge simplicitor, and that the principles of natural justice were not followed.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the discharge order was a punishment, as it imposed a stigma on the appellant and was preceded by two charge-sheets and a consideration of the appellant's replies. However, the court found that the procedure prescribed by the bank's circular was followed, and that a formal domestic enquiry was not necessary in this case since the appellant had admitted to writing the threatening letters.
Issues: 1. Whether the discharge order was a punishment or a discharge simplicitor? 2. Whether the principles of natural justice were followed in the disciplinary proceedings? 3. Whether a formal domestic enquiry was necessary in this case?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the discharge order was a punishment, as it imposed a stigma on the appellant and was preceded by two charge-sheets and a consideration of the appellant's replies. The court relied on the bank's circular, which provided that the Staff Committee shall administer all punishments including dismissals, and that the punishment shall be commensurate with the offence in the background of the history of the employee. 2. The court held that the principles of natural justice were followed in the disciplinary proceedings, as the appellant was served with two charge-sheets, his explanations were considered, and the Personal Committee took a decision on the basis of the evidence before it. 3. The court held that a formal domestic enquiry was not necessary in this case, as the appellant had admitted to writing the threatening letters. The court noted that a formal enquiry is ordinarily held if there is a dispute as to the question of fact, but in this case, the only issue was whether the letters were threatening in nature and contained offensive language, which could be determined by the Personal Committee without a formal enquiry.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the discharge order was valid and that the principles of natural justice were followed.
( 1 ) ON the conclusion of the hearing of this Letters Patent Appeal, we had orally ordered that the appeal was dismissed but with no order as to costs. The reasons for the dismissal of the appeal are given below.
( 2 ) THE appellant was appointed as a Clerk in the Punjab National Bank Limited on 9th May, 1940. According to the averments made in the writ petition, his appointment was made by the then Staff Controller. With effect from 1st April, 1946 he was promoted as a Supervisor and thereafter he was promoted as an Accountant with effect from 12th October, 1957. In March. 1959 he was reverted to the post of Supervisor but subsequently, with effect from 1st July, 1967, he was again promoted to the post of Accountant.
( 3 ) BETWEEN 1959 and 1974, five punishments were awarded to the appellant. These punishments were as follows : "1. 14. 9. 59. One graded increment withheld on account of negligence.
( 4 ) 25. 10. 60 Reverted as Supervisor for irregularities committed by you at B. O. Siliguri.
( 5 ) THE Regional Manager, in continuance of the earlier charge-sheet dated 18th July, 1974, served a further charge-sheet dated 27th July, 1974. In this it was, inter alia, stated that the appellant, while caring little for the discipline and decoram, had addressed letters directly to the office and various departments at the Head Office in utter disregard of explicit. instructions to write all representations through proper channel. It was also stated that in Tetters dated 12th July, 1974 and 20th July, 1974 written by the appellant the language used was highly offensive and the tone of the said letters smacked of insubordination and the same was derogatory and unbecoming of a responsible bank officer. It was alleged that the appellant wanted to intimate his superiors by addressing such letters. Reference in the second charge-sheet dated 27th July, 1974 was also made to the earlier punishments which had been imposed on the appellant. The appellant was then required to submit his explanation on the points set out in the said charge-sheet and he was also required to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for " (i) flouting discipline and decoram; (ii) using offence and derogatory lanuage in the letters addressed to your superiors; (iii) for having inauthorised excess to the offence correspondence; and (iv) intimidating and threatening your superiors. "
( 6 ) THE appellant sent his reply dated 6th August, 1974. He denied the allegations contained in the second charge-sheet. He did not, however, deny having written the letters to which objection was taken in the charge-sheet. On 7th August, 1974 the appelfant wrote a letter to the General Manager of the Bank alleging harassment by the Regional Manager as well as by the Manager of the Regional Manager s office against the appellant.
( 7 ) THEREAFTER the Regional Manager wrote a letter dated 26th December, 1974. It was stated therein that the Personnel Committee at the Head Office had considered the replies of the appellant dated 29th July, 1974 and 6th August. 1974 to the charges. levelled against him and had come to the conclusion that the replies were far from satisfactory. The appellant was informed that the Bank proposed to impose on him the punishment of discharge from service. The appellant was asked if he had anything to say against the proposed punishment.
( 8 ) THE appellant gave a reply dated 1st January, 1975. in the said reply he categorically admitted having written the letters to the language of which strong exception had been taken by the Bank. In this connection he expressed his regrets in the following words:
"i am extremely very very sorry for having written some very nasty letters, which I feel that I should never have written in such wordings, as has been done by me, whatever the frustration, or anger or disillusionment I might be having. I feel from the core of my heart that I have been unwise in the selection of words to put
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
