Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
Kalyan Rai Surana, J.
Saibal Shobhan Deb S/o Lt. Shekhar Sobhan Deb – Petitioner
Versus
Assam Co-Operative Apex Bank Limited Rep. By The Chairman and ors. – Respondents
WP(C)/5158 of 2012
Decided On : 14-06-2024
Departmental Enquiry - Assam Cooperative Apex Bank Ltd - Assam Cooperative Apex Bank (Staff) Rules, 1980, Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 - The court discussed the departmental proceedings against the petitioner, focusing on the lack of evidence, denial of reasonable opportunity to defend, and the vitiated nature of the enquiry. The court referred to key legal provisions such as Rule 9(6) of the Assam Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1964 and highlighted the importance of evidence and the right to cross-examine witnesses in disciplinary proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Accountant at Assam Cooperative Apex Bank Ltd, was suspended and later dismissed for alleged misconduct. The petitioner challenged the dismissal through a writ petition, citing irregularities in the departmental proceedings.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the departmental enquiry was vitiated by the lack of evidence, denial of reasonable opportunity to defend, and failure to provide crucial documents. The dismissal order and the subsequent rejection of the appeal were quashed.
Issues: The issues revolved around the fairness of the departmental proceedings, including the lack of evidence, denial of opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, and failure to provide crucial documents to the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of evidence and the right to cross-examine witnesses in disciplinary proceedings. It held that the departmental enquiry was vitiated by the lack of evidence and denial of reasonable opportunity to defend.
Final Decision: The court allowed the case, quashed the dismissal order and the rejection of the appeal, and directed the reinstatement of the petitioner if not superannuated, without awarding back wages but with full superannuation benefits.
JUDGMENT :
Heard Mr. N. Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared on call for the respondents.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner had orally prayed for an adjournment. However, it was noted that this writ petition was filed on 12.10.2012. Thus, this writ petition was 12 years old. Hence, the prayer for adjournment was refused. However, liberty was granted to the learned counsel for the petitioner to file written submissions by 17.05.2024. Mr. T.U. Laskar, the learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted his written argument to the Court Master on 18.05.2024, which is made a part of record.
3. In brief, the case of the petitioner is that at the relevant time he was working as an Accountant at the Hailakandi Branch of Assam Cooperative Apex Bank Ltd. By an order dated 11.06.2007, pending drawal of departmental proceeding, he was suspended. Thereafter, a charge-sheet dated 08.09.2007 was served on the petitioner along with the 9 (nine) article of charges; statement of allegations in support of the said 9 (nine) charges, requiring the petitioner to show-cause as to why penalties under Rule 46(a) of the Assam Cooperative Apex Bank (Staff) Rules, 1980 shall not be imposed for alleged misconduct of the petitioner. The petitioner was allowed 10 days time to inspect the documents and accordingly, the petitioner had submitted a request letter dated 03.10.2007 for furnishing him the required documents.
4. In continuation to the said departmental proceeding drawn against the petitioner, he was served with another show-cause notice dated 12.05.2008, requiring him to respond as to why penalties under Rule 46(a) of the Assam Cooperative Apex Bank (Staff) Rules, 1980 shall not be imposed for his alleged misconduct. The said notice was accompanied with 6 (six) article of charge; statement of allegations in support of the said 6 (six) article of charges; and list of documents. The petitioner had submitted his written statement of defence on 14.05.2008, denying the charges conveyed vide show-cause notice dated 08.09.2007. The petitioner had submitted another written statement of defence dated 16.05.2008, against the show-cause notice dated 12.05.2008.
5. By the minutes of proceeding of departmental enquiry dated 26.09.2008, the Enquiry Officer (hereinafter referred to as ‘EO’ for short) had held that all the charges against the petitioner was proved and established. Thereafter, second show-cause notice dated 07.08.2009 was served on the petitioner along with a copy of the enquiry report (24 pages). The petitioner had submitted his written reply dated 10.09.2009 in respect of the said second show-cause notice dated 07.08.2009. It appears that after the petitioner had made a request for a personal hearing, he was personally heard on 12.11.2009. Thereafter, by order dated 24.12.2009, the Managing Director of the Assam Cooperative Apex Bank Ltd. (respondent no. 2), in exercise of power under Rule 46(a)(vi) of the Assam Cooperative Bank Limited (Staff) Rules, 1980, held that the petitioner had failed to maintain trust and honesty while dealing with public money and ordered dismissal of the petitioner from service with immediate effect. It was further ordered that apart from subsistence allowance already drawn, the petitioner would not be entitled to any salaries and allowances.
6. The petitioner had thereafter, submitted an appeal dated 22.03.2010, which was served on the authorities on 23.03.2010. It appears that as the appeal was not disposed of early. Hence, the petitioner had filed a writ petition and this Court by order dated 21.02.2012, allowed W.P.(C) 809/2012, by directing the respondent authorities to dispose of the departmental appeal within a period of one month from the date of furnishing the certified copy of the order. As the appeal was not disposed of, the petitioner had approached this Court again by filing a contempt petition. In the said contempt proceeding, the learned counsel for the Chairman, The Board of Direc
Departmental proceedings must be initiated by the appointing authority, and failure to comply with this requirement renders the proceedings void, violating principles of natural justice.
Departmental proceedings initiated without the appointing authority's approval are void, and failure to provide access to relevant documents violates natural justice principles.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the failure to conduct a proper departmental enquiry, especially in cases involving major penalties, violates the principles of natural justic....
The court established that in disciplinary proceedings, the principles of natural justice must be followed, but the court's role is limited to ensuring procedural fairness rather than re-evaluating t....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to adhere to the prescribed procedure for disciplinary enquiries as per the U.P. Government Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules,....
The court ruled that failure to provide inquiry reports and examine witnesses violates natural justice, rendering disciplinary actions arbitrary and illegal.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of evidence to prove charges in a disciplinary proceeding, the need for adherence to natural justice principles, and the entitle....
The importance of integrity and honesty in the banking sector, the purpose of a disciplinary proceeding by an employer, and the compliance with the rules of natural justice in disciplinary enquiries.
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
