Point of Law: Gross misconduct” has been resorted to by the acts or omissions on the part of the appellant and the punishment of “Compulsory Retirement” imposed by the bank authority is not disproportionate.

JUDGMENT :

Soumitra Saikia, J

The appellant was initially appointed as a Clerk in the Canara Bank. He earned his promotion in due course and at the point in time he was employed as Special Assistant and was posted in the Sikh Temple Branch, Guwahati since 17.06.1994. The appellant was served with a Show-Cause notice dated 26.08.2002 issued by the Deputy General Manager (DGM), Circle Office, Calcutta alleging irregular adjustments in Suspense Deposit Account. The appellant replied to the Show-Cause notice denying the allegations made. The Disciplinary Authority did not accept his explanations/reply. Thereafter, an Enquiry Officer was appointed and enquiry proceedings were initiated against the appellant. The appellant participated in the enquiry proceedings and the Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report dated 14.06.2003 holding all the charges levelled against the appellant to be proved. On the basis of the Enquiry Report, the Disciplinary Authority imposed major punishment of “Compulsory Retirement” as provided for under Regulation 4 (B) of Chapter XI of the Canara Bank Service Code (hereinafter referred as “Service Code”). The appellant being aggrieved by the order of “Compulsory Retirement”, preferred an appeal before the Authority prescribed under the Service Code. His appeal also being rejected by the Appellate Authority, he preferred a writ petition being W.P(C) No. 6377/2005 challenging the validity, legality and proprietary of the order of “Compulsory Retirement” dated 27.09.2003 as well as the order dated 30.12.2004 passed by the Appellate Authority. The learned Single Judge vide Judgment dated 17.09.2013 dismissed the writ petition declining to interfere with the order of Compulsory Retirement passed by the Disciplinary Authority. Being dissatisfied with the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the present writ appeal has been preferred.

2. Mr. N.C. Das, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. A. Das, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the allegations/charges against the appellant were totally uncalled for as the appellant had been diligent in rendering his service since his date of appointment. The learned Senior counsel referring to the communication dated 26.08.2002 would submit that the same was issued to the appellant to explain Irregular Adjustment in suspense Deposit Account at your Branch- Irregularities observed on your part. There was no allegation of causing financial loss to the bank or wrongful gain by the appellant. That apart, the learned Senior counsel urged that during the enquiry proceedings, there are management witnesses who had testified that the appellant was one of the excellent employees of the Branch. The learned Senior counsel also submits that as per the Canara Bank Service Code “Misconduct” may be “gross misconduct” or “minor misconduct”. Referring to Clause 3 of the Service Code, he submits that the acts and omission of “gross misconduct” referred thereunder does not relate to any of the charges made against the appellant. Instead at best, the acts or omissions provided for under Clause 5 (d) can be attributed to the appellant namely “breach of any rule of business of the bank or instruction for the running of any department”. He refers to Clause 6 of the Service Code and submits that the punishment pursuant to any finding arrived at in respect of minor misconduct are provided for under Clause 6 of the Service Code. The learned Senior counsel, therefore submits that besides the enquiry being conducted in gross violation of the procedures mandated under law and with total disregard to the lack of evidence against the appellant, even assuming though not admitting that pursuant to the enquiry any punishment was required to be imposed upon the appellant, the same could only have been done as provided for under the Service Code for those which relate to minor misconduct.