IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Satish Chandra Sharma, Sanjeev Narula, JJ.
Punjab National Bank – Appellant
Versus
Smt. Sneh Aggarwal – Respondent
LPA 182 of 2023 & CM Appls. 12393-12394 of 2023 and LPA 303 of 2023 & C.M. No. 18734 of 2023
Decided On : 26-07-2023
Fraud - Employment Dismissal - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act) - Section 11-A
Fact of the Case:
The Respondent, an employee of Punjab National Bank, was dismissed for involvement in a fraud related to a Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR). The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) advised disciplinary action, leading to dismissal. The Industrial Tribunal initially ordered reinstatement, but the High Court remanded the case for further evidence. The Tribunal subsequently upheld the dismissal, which was affirmed by the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court upheld the dismissal, modifying the punishment to compulsory retirement. It declined to interfere with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and the Tribunal, citing established legal principles and the seriousness of the offense.
Issues: Validity of dismissal for fraud, interference with quantum of punishment, adherence to principles of natural justice
Ratio Decidendi: Limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings, necessity of adherence to principles of natural justice, seriousness of fraud in banking sector
Final Decision: The dismissal was upheld, and the modification of punishment to compulsory retirement was set aside. The appeals were allowed and dismissed accordingly.
JUDGMENT
Satish Chandra Sharma, C.J. The present Appeals are arising out of an order dated 18.01.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C.) No. 4852/2014 titled Smt Sneh Aggarwal Vs. Punjab National Bank.
2. The LPA 182/2023 is an Appeal preferred by the Punjab National Bank against the order dated 18.01.2023 to the extent the punishment of dismissal has been moderated to that of compulsory retirement.
3. The LPA 303/2023, which has been preferred by Smt. Sneh Aggarwal, is an appeal against the order dated 18.01.2023 claiming reinstatement and against the findings arrived at by the learned Single Judge by which the learned Single Judge has upheld the departmental enquiry proceedings and the consequential orders passed by Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority as well as by the Industrial Tribunal.
4. For deciding both the aforesaid Appeals, which are arising out of a common judgment, the facts as narrated in LPA 182/2023 titled Punjab National Bank Vs. Smt Snbh Aggarwal, are being dealt with as under.
5. The facts of the case reveal that the Respondent herein was appointed as a Clerk-cum-Cashier in the Services of Punjab National Bank on 15.09.1978 and, at the relevant point of time, she was posted as Advanced Level Punching Machine Operator (ALPM) at Branch Office Parliament Street, New Delhi.
6. The facts further reveal that a Fixed Deposit Receipt (FDR) bearing NO. 20/91 dated 02.02.1991 for a sum of Rs.60,000/- was deposited by the Respondent at Parliament Street Branch on 04.02.1991 and the Respondent Employee applied for loan of Rs.60,000/- by pledging the FDR with the Bank. Loan of Rs.60,000/- was sanctioned in her favour. However, in an audit report, it was brought to the notice of the authorities that the FDR which was deposited by the Respondent Employee, though reflected Rs.60,000/-, was not a FDR in respect of the amount of Rs.60,000/- and only a sum of Rs.6,000/- deposited with the Bank on 03.02.1991. The fraud was detected by the Bank and the Respondent Employee refunded the loan amount of Rs.60,000/- which she took against the FDR on 28.01.1992.
7. The matter was reported to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the CBI lodged a case in respect of fraud committed at Kallirampur, Meerut Branch of the the Bank, where one Mr. P.S. Bedi, was the manager.
8. It is pertinent that Mr. P. S. Bedi has already been dismissed from the service. The CBI advised the Bank to proceed with disciplinary action in respect of the Respondent Employee and a charge-sheet was issued on 07.02.1994 to the Respondent Employee. The Respondent Employee did submit a reply to the charge-sheet and, thereafter, Enquiry Officer was appointed to hold an enquiry in the matter.
9. The Enquiry Officer after following due process of law, submitted an enquiry report holding the employee guilty of the misconduct. The Disciplinary Authority agreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer issued a show cause notice to the Respondent Employee and after hearing the Respondent Employee, finally passed an order of dismissal on 11.08.1995.
10. The Respondent Employee preferred an appeal in the matter and the Appellant Authority has dismissed the appeal. The Respondent Employee thereafter took shelter of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (ID Act) raising a industrial dispute and the appropriate Government vide order dated 30.09.1997 forwarded the reference to the Tribunal for adjudication. The reference forwarded by the Industrial Tribunal by the appropriate Government reads as under:
""Whether the action of the management of PNB in dismissing the Service of Sneh Lata Aggarwal Clerk-cum-Cashier w.e.f. 11.8.95 Is just and fair. If not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?"."
11. The Respondent Employee filed a claim statement stating that prior to her posting at Parliament Street Branch she was working under Sh. P. S. Bedi at Tilak Nagar Branch who was later on transferred to Kallirampur Branch, Meerut, a
Limited scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings, necessity of adherence to principles of natural justice, seriousness of fraud in banking sector
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited jurisdiction of the High Court in interfering with the quantum of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority.
The Tribunal's modification of punishment from dismissal to compulsory retirement was justified based on proportionality and the workman's long service, emphasizing the importance of fair inquiry pro....
The standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings is based on preponderance of probabilities, and the court does not reappraise evidence unless there is a violation of natural justice.
Judicial review of disciplinary proceedings is limited to assessing procedural fairness; evidence must meet the preponderance of probabilities standard in administrative contexts, not beyond a reason....
The judgment emphasizes the limited scope of interference in departmental proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 and the importance of justifying the penalty imposed.
Departmental inquiries require a preponderance of probabilities for proof, differing from the strict standards in criminal trials, and insufficient evidence can render dismissal illegal.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.