VIJAY BISHNOI, KAUSHIK GOSWAMI
Chairman and Managing Director, UCO Bank – Appellant
Versus
Chandra Bhusan Kumar, S/o- Late B. L. Das – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
KAUSHIK GOSWAMI, J.
Heard Mr. M. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. M.P. Sarma, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent.
2. This appeal is being presented against the judgment & order dated 21.01.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No.5712/2016, whereby the impugned order dated 30.09.2015 issued by the Assistant General Manager, UCO Bank imposing penalty of reduction of basic pay by 4(four) stages in the time scale of pay was set aside.
3. The factual matrix of the case is that the sole respondent (writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge), while working as Assistant Manager in the Lead Bank Office, UCO Bank, Darrang, was issued with a show-cause notice dated 30.04.2014 by the appellant Bank (respondents before the learned Single Judge) seeking explanation as regard deposits made in his several bank accounts. The respondent/writ petitioner, in his reply to the above show-cause, explained the subject cash deposits in his bank accounts. Pursuant to the reply furnished by the respondent/writ petitioner, the appellant Bank, vide communication dated 06.12.2014, issued the charge-sheet to the respondent/writ petitioner. Accordi
The court found that the imposition of penalty was unjustified as there was insufficient evidence of misconduct by the bank officer under the applicable regulations.
There cannot be a finding of misconduct against the petitioner in respect of Regulation 3(1) of the 1976 Regulations as Regulation 3(1) has to be considered in the light of whether the employee has b....
Punishment – Constitutional Courts while exercising their power of judicial review under Articles 226 or 227 of Constitution would not assume role of appellate authority where jurisdiction is circums....
The disciplinary action was modified due to unsubstantiated allegations, emphasizing that personal financial transactions do not constitute misconduct unless violating conduct regulations.
Charges in disciplinary proceedings must be specific and fair, adhering to natural justice principles.
Bank employees are required to maintain absolute integrity and uprightness in dealing with customer funds, and any misconduct in handling public money must be dealt with firmly.
Disciplinary authority's discretion in imposing penalties must be reasonable and proportionate to established misconduct, ensuring integrity in banking operations.
Regulation 7(2) of the Punjab National Bank Officer Employees’ Regulation, 1977 did not stipulate granting of an opportunity to represent against disagreement recorded by Disciplinary Authority.
Distinct allegations against employee charged in the same transaction would be justified being based on a valid classification and no perversity or arbitrariness can be alleged in the process.
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.
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.