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

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
P.K. Bhasin, J.
P.N. SALUJA - Appellant
Vs.
STATE BANK OF INDIA - Respondent
Writ Petition (C) 1300 of 1988
Decided On : 10-09-2012

Advocates Appeared:
For the Respondent: ajiv Kapur and Ms. Vatsala Rai

The punishment of removal from service awarded to the petitioner cannot be sustained as the charges were stale and innocuous, and the findings of guilt arrived at by the enquiry officer were not based on evidence.

Headnote:

Misconduct - Employment - Charges 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 - The petitioner was found guilty of misconduct in a domestic enquiry held against him by his erstwhile employer, the respondent bank. The charges included unauthorized commuting from Delhi, false claims for travel and transfer allowances, and misbehavior with bank officials. The petitioner refuted the charges in his reply to the charge-sheet. The disciplinary authority initiated a regular departmental enquiry against him, during which eleven witnesses were examined from the side of the respondent bank and the petitioner. The enquiry officer accepted the evidence adduced from the side of the respondent-bank and held him guilty of all the charges except for charge No. 6, which was held to be proved partly. The disciplinary authority then decided to award the punishment of removal from service to the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the decision before the Appellate Authority of the bank, but the appeal was rejected. The petitioner then approached the court with a writ petition for quashing the entire departmental proceedings and for his reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits. The court found that the charges were stale and innocuous, and the findings of guilt arrived at by the enquiry officer were not based on evidence. The court concluded that the punishment of removal from service awarded to the petitioner cannot be sustained, and the petitioner was exonerated of all the charges of misconduct.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner was employed with the respondent bank and was found guilty of misconduct in a domestic enquiry held against him. The charges included unauthorized commuting from Delhi, false claims for travel and transfer allowances, and misbehavior with bank officials. The petitioner refuted the charges in his reply to the charge-sheet.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the charges were stale and innocuous, and the findings of guilt arrived at by the enquiry officer were not based on evidence. The court concluded that the punishment of removal from service awarded to the petitioner cannot be sustained, and the petitioner was exonerated of all the charges of misconduct.

Issues: The issues included the validity of the charges of misconduct, the findings of the enquiry officer, and the punishment of removal from service awarded to the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the charges were stale and innocuous, and the findings of guilt arrived at by the enquiry officer were not based on evidence. The court concluded that the punishment of removal from service awarded to the petitioner cannot be sustained, and the petitioner was exonerated of all the charges of misconduct.

Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition and the petitioner was exonerated of all the charges of misconduct. The petitioner became entitled to get all the consequential service benefits which he would have got had he not been illegally removed from service.

JUDGMENT :

P.K. Bhasin, J.

This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the respondent challenging the decision of his erstwhile employer, the respondent herein, to remove him from service after he had been found guilty of some acts of misconduct in the domestic enquiry held against him. The relevant facts are that the petitioner was employed with the respondent in the year 1967 as a clerk and to begin with he was posted in one of the banks branches in Varanasi. In the year 1970 he was transferred to Kanpur and from there he was brought to Delhi in the year 1971. He came to be promoted as an Officer in October, 1977 and then was transferred to Firozpur Jhirka in September, 1980. However he did not join there and the respondent then issued a fresh transfer order transferring him to Gurgaon where he joined in November, 1980. From Gurgaon he was transferred to Palwal sometime in the year 1981 and finally in 1982 he was transferred to Faridabad.

2. It appears that on 8th June,1983 the petitioner came to the banks regional office in Delhi from Faridabad to enquire about his increment which according to him was long overdue but was not being given to him. During that visit he met the Regional Manager and in that meeting he allegedly talked to the Regional Manager rudely. That incident led to his suspension on 13.06.1983. Nothing happened thereafter for quite sometime and it appears that the management had started digging out some more material against the petitioner to be used against him in the contemplated disciplinary proceedings against him and it succeeded in gathering some material which showed commission of some other acts of misconduct also by the petitioner in the earlier years. Then in October, 1983 he was served with a charge-sheet in respect of his misbehavior with the Regional Manager on 8th June,1983 and besides that allegation some other allegations of misconduct committed by him in the past were also leveled against him and he was required to submit his explanation. The allegations leveled against him were that:-

1. He while posted at Mehrauli Road (Gurgaon), Palwal and Sarai Khwaja (Faridabad) branches left the stations of his postings and commuted daily from Delhi without obtaining prior permission of the controlling authority.

2. He submitted a false T.A. Bill for Rs 715/- on account of his transfer from Connaught Circus New Delhi to Mehrauli Road (Gurgaon) Branch wherein he claimed Rs. 500/- by way of incidental charges(packing, cartage etc.) when he was not entitled to it as he never shifted his residence/luggage to Gurgaon and daily commuted from Delhi.

3. He submitted a Mid-Academic Transfer Allowance bill for Rs. 740/- for the period 19th September 1980 to 30th April 1981 by concealing the fact of his having not shifted his residence to Gurgaon. Incidentally, he was relieved of his duties from Connaught Circus (New Delhi) Branch as at the close of business on the 18th September, 1980 on transfer to Firozepur Jhirka Branch and remained unauthorized absent from duty without reporting thereat. Subsequently, his transfer order was modified for Mehrauli Road, Gurgaon Branch and he reported thereat on the 27th November, 1980.

4. He while posted at Palwal Branch, again falsely claimed a sum of Rs.1000/- as Mid Academic Transfer Allowance for the period July 1981 to April 1982 when he was not entitled to it as his children were already studying in Delhi while he was transferred from Mehrauli Road (Gurgaon) to Palwal Branch and he never shifted his residence to Palwal.

5. While posted at Palwal Branch, he took an advance of Rs 1500/- on 28/5/1982 for visiting Kanpur under Home Travel Concession during the period 16/6/82 to 30/6/82 by giving a false statement that his place of domicile was Kanpur whereas it was New Delhi as per Banks record. The amount of advance has not been refunded by him so far despite reminder.

6. He was advised by our Palwal Branch Manager on the 17th August, 1981 to take over complete char

























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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