Back
2009 Supreme(Ori) 181
2009 (II) OLR — 273
I.M. QUDDUSI AND B.P. RAY, JJ.
Madhusudan Dikshit...Petitioner
Versus
UCO Bank represented through Its General Manager (Personnel)...Opp. Parties
O.J.C. No. 4838 of 2002
Decided on 21st May, 2009.
For Petitioner:M/s. S. D. Das, Sr. Advocate, H. S. Satpathy, D. R. Bhokta, D. R. Sundaray, B. Bisoi, M. Panda, D. Mohanty, A. N. Sahoo and P. Rath
For Opp.Parties:M/s. Somanath Mishra, Girija Tripathy and Subrath Mishra (Opp.Party No.2)
Headnote:UCO BANK OFFICERS EMPLOYEES (DISCIPLINE AND APPEAL) REGULATIONS, 1976 - Departmental proceedings - Punishment against each charge - Writ for quashing the punishment - Inquiry report not supplied to the petitioner - Petitioner deprived of making a representation, which amounts to denial of the reasonable opportunity - Order of punishment quashed - Direction issued.
Wherever there has been an Inquiry Officer and he has furnished a report to the disciplinary authority at the conclusion of the inquiry holding the delinquent guilty of all or any of the charges with proposal for any particular punishment or not, the delinquent is entitled to a copy of such report and will also be entitled to make a representation against it, if he so desires, and non-furnishing of the report would amount to violation of rules of natural justice and make the final order liable to challenge hereafter.
Denial of the report of the Inquiry Officer is a denial of reasonable opportunity and a breach of the principles of natural justice, it follows that the statutory rules, if any, which deny the report to the employee are against the principles of natural justice and; therefore, invalid. The delinquent employee will, therefore, be entitled to a copy of the report even if the statutory rules do not permit the furnishing of the report or are silent on the subject. Article 311(2) makes it obligatory to hold an inquiry before the employee is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank. The Article, however, cannot be construed to mean that it prevents or prohibits the inquiry when punishment other than that of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank is awarded. The procedure to be followed in awarding other punishments is laid down in the service rules governing the employee. In the matter of all punishments both Government servants and others are governed by their service rules. Whenever, therefore, the service rules contemplate an inquiry before a punishment is awarded, and when the Inquiry Officer is not the disciplinary authority the delinquent employee will have the right to receive the Inquiry Officer’s report notwithstanding the nature of the punishment. Since it is the right of the em¬ployee to have the report to defend himself effectively, and he would not know in advance whether the report is in his favour or against him, it will not be proper to construe his failure to ask for the report, as the waiver of his right. Whether, therefore, the employee asks for the report or not, the report has to be furnished to him and whatever the nature of punishment, further, whenever the rules require an inquiry to be held, for inflicting the punishment in question, the delinquent employee should have the benefit of the report of the Inquiry Officer before discipli¬nary authority records its findings on the charges levelled against him.
(Paras - 5 to 8)
JUDGMENT
I.M. QUDDUSI, J. — This writ petition has been filed with a prayer for quashing the impugned order of punishment dated 21.10.2000 (Annexure-6) passed by the Deputy General Manager & Discipline Authority, UCO Bank in departmental proceeding awarding punishment against each charge in terms of the UCO Bank Officers Employees’ (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations 1976, relevant portion of which is reproduced as under :
“In exercise of powers conferred upon me in terms of Regulations 6 of the UCO Bank Officers Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regula¬tions read with Regulation 4 of the above said regulation, I award the following penalties on the CSOE in the capacity of Disciplinary Authority.
(1) Charge No.1-Proved-The Basic Pay of Sri M.S. Dixit (PFM No.20207) is reduced by two stages for a period of one year in the time scale applicable to him and during the period of such reduction Sri Dixit will NOT earn any increments of pay and on the expiry of such period the reduction shall not have the effect of postponing his future increments.
(2) Charge No.2-Proved- The Basic Pay of Sri M.S. Dixit (PFM No.20207) is reduced by two stages for a period of one year in the time scale applicable to him and during the period of such reduction Sri M.S. Dixit will NOT earn any increments of pay and on the expiry of such period the reduction shall not have effect of postponing his future increments.
(3) Charge No.3-Proved-Censured.
(4) Charge No.4-Proved-Censured.
(5) Charge No.5-Proved-Censured.
(6) Charge No.6-Not Proved-Exonerated.
(7) Charge No.7-Not Proved-Exonerated.
(8) Charge No.8-Not Proved-Exonerated.
(9) Charge No.9-Not Proved-Exonerated.
All above penalties will have concurrent effect.”
2. The brief facts of the petitioner’s case is that he was initially appointed as Officer Grade-D i.e. in the Scale-I Cadre on 12.11.1976 and subsequently he was promoted to Scale-II Cadre on 1.1.98 and is continuing as such till date. During incumbency of the petitioner as Manager of College Square Branch, Cuttack from 27.9.1988 to 8.7.1995, the opposite party, basing upon the statement of allegations regarding the act of commission of omission made by the petitioner, framed nine articles of charges. After receipt of the statement of allegations of article of charges, the petitioner requested the authorities to permit him to inspect the incriminating materials but in that regard no response was made from the opposite party-bank authorities. Being aggrieved the petitioner filed O.J.C. No.6909 of 1999, which was disposed of on 28.6.1999 by directing the opposite parties to permit the petitioner to inspect the relevant records/register to enable him to submit his written statement. In spite of specific order passed by this Court, the authorities did not allow the petitioner sufficient opportunity to inspect the document. Fur¬ther it has been submitted that the alleged incident relates to the year 1995 and the proceeding was initiated in the year 1997 that too just a few days before the name of the petitioner got recommended for promotion to the next scale and since the depart¬mental proceeding was pending against the petitioner, he could not enjoy the promotional benefit even though his case was a fit case for promotion to next scale against which the petitioner filed OJC. No.13561 of 1999. By order dated 28.7.2000, the said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the opposite parties to conclude the inquiry and take a decision thereon within a period of eight weeks from the date of appearance of the petitioner before the concerned authority. The petitioner was also directed to appear before the concerned authority on the 9th of August, 2000 and cooperate in the conduct of the proceedings and the days of adjournment taken by the petitioner shall be excluded for the purpose of computing the period of eight weeks and it was also directed that on failure of the authorities to conclude the inquiry and take a decision thereon with
