Back
THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J
Bitashok Rakshit S/o. Lt. Dr. Banabehari Rakshit - Appellant
Versus
United Bank Of India And 5 Ors - Respondent
WP(C) 54 / 2017
Decided On : 21-01-2025
(A) United Bank of India Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 - Regulation 3(1) and 3(3) - Disciplinary action against bank employee - Penalty of reduction of basic pay by four stages imposed for misconduct in debiting customer accounts without consent - Inquiry established charges of misconduct. (Paras 2 , 3 , 15 , 20 , 34 )
(B) Disciplinary Proceedings - The necessity for fair inquiry and opportunity to defend - Denial of cross-examination rights and provision of documents can vitiate proceedings if prejudicial. (Paras 11 , 24 )
(C) Proportionality of Punishment - The principle of proportionality in disciplinary actions must be observed; however, the authority has discretion in penalty imposition. (Paras 28 , 33 )
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a Branch Manager at United Bank of India, was penalized for unauthorized debits from customer accounts for policy premiums, with allegations of misconduct established in inquiry.
Findings of Court:
The inquiry findings were upheld, and the penalty was deemed proportionate to the misconduct established, reflecting the need for integrity in banking.
Issues: Whether the disciplinary proceedings were fair and whether the penalty was disproportionate to the misconduct.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the disciplinary authority's findings were supported by evidence and upheld the penalty, emphasizing the importance of integrity in banking.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J.
Heard Mr. T. J. Mahanta, learned senior counsel, assisted by Mr. P. P.Dutta, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner. However, none appears on behalf of the respondent United Bank of India(UBI).
2. The challenge in the present proceeding is to an order, dated 10.09.2013, issued by the Assistant General Manager-cum-disciplinary authority imposing upon the petitioner, a penalty of reduction of basic pay by 4(four) stages in the time scale of pay till superannuation with further stipulation that no increment would be earned during the period. The petitioner has also assailed the Inquiry Report as well as the orders passed by the appellate authority and the reviewing authority.
3. The brief facts requisite for adjudication of the issue arising in the present proceeding, is noticed as under:
The petitioner, herein, while functioning as the Branch Manager of Mariani Branch of United Bank of India (UBI), was served with a Show Cause Notice, dated 24.01.2013, leveling allegations against the petitioner as Manager at Kamargaon Branch of United Bank of India(UBI), during his tenure therein w.e.f. 09.10.2009 to 29.07.2011.
Vide the said Show Cause Notice, dated 24.01.2013, 2(two) allegations came to be levelled against the petitioner pertaining to debits being made from the accounts of the customers of United Bank of India(UBI) towards payment of premium to TATA AIG for procuring policies for the KCC account holders involved. However, the first allegation so levelled against the petitioner, highlights that the amounts so deducted were utilized for procuring policies from TATA AIG in the names of the petitioner, herein, and another employee of the said Branch of United Bank of India(UBI).
The second allegation pertains to debits made against 84 KCC accounts for procuring policies from the TATA AIG in favour of the account holders without obtaining the prior consent of the said borrowers. The said allegation also reveals that transactions were so done by the petitioner single-handedly.
The petitioner on receipt of the said Show Cause Notice, dated 24.01.2013, submitted his written statement in the matter on 25.03.2013, denying the allegations so levelled against him. The petitioner also clarified about the transactions so involved in the allegations levelled against him.
The disciplinary authority not being satisfied with the explanations as advanced by the petitioner in his written statement of defence, proceeded vide communication, dated 18.04.2013, to direct for holding of an inquiry in the matter. For the purpose of the inquiry, an Inquiry Officer and a Presenting Officer came to be so appointed. The Inquiry Officer held an inquiry in the matter and on conclusion of the same, proceeded to submit his Inquiry Report, vide communication, dated 08.08.2013, holding the charges levelled against the petitioner vide the Show Cause Notice, dated 24.01.2013, to have been established.
A copy of the said Inquiry Report was also forwarded to the petitioner by the disciplinary authority vide communication, dated 10.08.2013. The petitioner vide his representation, dated 23.08.2013, dealt with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and requested that the findings of the Inquiry Officer in the Inquiry Report not being in consonance with the materials coming on record, the same would not mandate an acceptance. However, the disciplinary authority, on consideration of the Inquiry Report as well as the representation submitted by the petitioner in the matter against the same; proceeded vide order, dated 10.09.2013, to agree with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and by concluding that the charges so levelled against him, were established in the inquiry so held, proceeded to impose upon him, a penalty of reduction of his basic pay by 4(four) stages in the time scale of pay till superannuation with further stipulation that during the
Disciplinary authority's discretion in imposing penalties must be reasonable and proportionate to established misconduct, ensuring integrity in banking operations.
Bank employees must maintain high standards of integrity; misconduct leading to loss of confidence justifies disciplinary penalties.
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.
The court established that procedural flaws in disciplinary inquiries do not automatically invalidate the proceedings unless the employee can demonstrate actual prejudice resulting from those flaws.
Removal from Service - Committed irregularities - Procedure for imposing major penalties - Power of judicial review available to High Court as also to this Court under Constitution takes in its strid....
Disciplinary actions must adhere to principles of natural justice, and failure to provide relevant evidence undermines the validity of proceedings.
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.
The court upheld the disciplinary proceedings and the penalty imposed, but modified the penalty from removal from service to compulsory retirement, considering the nature of the petitioner's role and....
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
