IMPORTANT POINT
The court ruled that a major penalty procedure cannot be converted into a minor penalty procedure without explicit regulatory provisions, but found no prejudice in the minor penalty imposed.

JUDGMENT :

An Order of penalty of reduction in Basic Pay by three stages without cumulative effect, dated 19.05.2017, which was communicated to the petitioner on 23.05.2017 is the subject matter of challenge in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

2. There is a checkered history involved in this case.

3. The petitioner was serving as a Scale-IV Officer in the United Bank of India and he had retired from service on 30.09.1999. Just two days prior to his retirement, a charge-memo was issued to him on 28.09.1999 whereby certain charges were levelled against him and on his denial, an enquiry was held which culminated in an order of penalty dated 22.02.2002, whereby, the penalty of reduction of pay scale by six stages was imposed. The aforesaid penalty, which was a major penalty under the United Bank of India Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulation, 1976 (hereinafter the Regulations) was the subject matter of challenge in a writ petition, WP(C) No. 6482 of 2006. The said writ petition was allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 22.05.2014 and the penalty was set aside. However, a liberty was granted to the respondent Bank to initiate a de novo enquiry by giving the petitioner all the opportunities. This Court had also observed that taking into consideration the long period of the proceeding, no major penalty was to be imposed upon the petitioner.

4. The aforesaid judgment was the subject matter of appeal in WA No. 360 of 2015, which was, however, dismissed by the Hon’ble Division Bench. Thereafter, on 20.01.2017, the petitioner was communicated with the action of the Bank to proceed with a de novo enquiry. However, soon thereafter, vide the impugned order, dated 19.05.2017, the present penalty was imposed, which was communicated to the petitioner on 23.05.2017. It is the legality and validity of this penalty which is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.

5. I have heard Shri S. Chakraborty, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri S. Dutta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. S. Mochahari, learned counsel for the respondents.

6. Shri Chakraborty, the learned counsel for the petitioner, by referring to the Regulations, has submitted that there is a distinction between major penalty and the procedure involved and minor penalty and the procedure involved. By drawing the attention of this Court to Regulation 6, the learned counsel has submitted that for imposing a major penalty, a detail procedure is required. However, as per Regulation 8, for imposing a minor penalty, detail procedure is not required. It is submitted that the charges being serious in nature, which were however interfered with by this Court in the earlier round of litigation, the requirement of having an enquiry could not have been done away with. He submits that there is no provision in the Regulation to convert a proceeding under Regulation 6 to a proceeding under Regulation 8. He reiterates that under Regulation 8, there is no requirement to frame definite charges.

7. By drawing the attention of this Court to the part of the judgment dated 22.05.2014, Shri Chakraborty, the learned counsel has submitted that it was recorded in the judgment that no opportunity of cross-examination was afforded to the petitioner on the aspect of re-examination of the management witnesses. This Court had also recorded that documents were not given to the petitioner, which were relied upon by the management. He has also referred to the part of the judgment as per which the Bank was given the liberty to appoint another Enquiry Officer. He submits that these directions were not followed and by taking a shortcut, the Bank had done away with the requirement of an enquiry by taking the excuse of adopting minor penalty procedure. He has also submitted that in the impugned order, more particularly, in Paragraph-16, the charges have been h