Back
2015 Supreme(Ori) 396
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
B.R. Sarangi, J.
Niroj Kumar Das – Appellant
Vs.
United Bank of India and Others – Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 9535 of 2008
Decided On : 01-12-2015
For the Appellant : Aswini Kumar Mishra, Senior Counsel, J. Sengupta, D.K. Panda, G. Sinha, A. Mishra and S. Mishra.
For the Respondent: H.M. Dhal, B.B. Swain, N. Mishra and A.K. Patnaik.
Headnote:1. UNITED BANK OF INDIA OFFICERS EMPLOYEES’ (DISCIPLINE AND APPEAL) REGULATIONS, 1976 - Disciplinary proceeding - Major penalty of compulsory retirement - Writ - Discussing the facts, contention and the ratio of law laid down in cited cases held, imposition of punishment of compulsory retirement from service for the kind of misconduct alleged relying on the statement of ’NN’ recorded during preliminary enquiry, which has not been supplied to the petitioner, appears to be grossly disproportionate, which cannot sustain in the eye of law - Order of disciplinary authority imposing punishment of compulsory retirement quashed - Directions issued.
(Paras - 23 and 24)
2. CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 - Arts. 14, 226 and 227 Disciplinary proceeding - Quantum of punishment - Judicial review - While exercising power of judicial’ review under Art. 226, High Court shall not normally interfere with the punishment imposed by the authority nor shall it interfere with the quantum of punishment imposed by the authority - It is within the domain of the appellate authority to interfere with such quantum of punishment but not a Court or Tribunal - If the punishment awarded is disproportionate to the charge of misconduct, it would be arbitrary and thus would violate the mandate of Art. 14 of the Constitution.
What is the appropriate quantum of punishment to be awarded to a delinquent is a matter that primarily rests at the discretion of the disciplinary authority. An authority sitting in appeal over any such order of punishment is by all means entitled to examine the issue regarding the quantum of punishment inasmuch as it is entitled to examine whether the charges have been satisfactorily proved. But when any such order is challenged before a Service Tribunal or the High Court the exercise of discretion by the competent authority in determining the awarding punishment is generally respected except where the same is found to be so outrageously disproportionate to the charges of misconduct and the Court considers it to be arbitrary and wholly unreasonable. The superior Courts and the Tribunal invoke the doctrine of proportionality Which has been gradually accepted as one of the facets of judicial review. Where punishment is excessive or disproportionate to the offence so as to shock the conscience of the Court and is unacceptable even then Courts should be slow and generally reluctant to interfere with the quantum of punishment. (Paras - 12 to 18)
3. DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDJNG - Scope of judicial review in the matter of imposition of penalty as a result of disciplinary proceeding is very limited - High Court can interfere with the punishment only if it finds the same to be shockingly disproportionate to the charges proved - In such a case, the Court is to remit the matter back to the disciplinary authority for reconsideration of punishment -In appropriate cases, in order to avoid delay the Court can itself impose lesser punishment. (Para - 13)
JUDGMENT :
B.R. Sarangi, J.
1. The petitioner, who was working as Branch Manager, Alligonda branch of United Bank of India, has filed this petition Seeking to quash the order of punishment of removal from service dated 30.11.2007 communicated on 08.12.2007 in Annexure-8 and confirmation thereof by the appellate authority-opposite party No. 2 vide order dated 25.03.2008 communicated on 26.03.2008 in Annexure-10 and further seeking for a direction to opposite parties to reinstate him in service with financial benefits with retrospective effect. The short fact of the case, in hand, is that the petitioner was posted as Manager in Alligonda branch of United Bank of India, pursuant to which, he joined on 01.05.2006. While he was so continuing, on 01.07.2006, one Sunil Pradhan came and requested him to encash a cheque drawn on ICICI bank amounting to Rs. 4,390/-. As Sri Pradhan did not have any account with the Bank, he requested him to open a savings bank account and to get the cheque encashed. Accordingly, Sri Pradhan opened savings bank account by following due formalities and the encashed amount was credited to his savings bank account. After coming to know about the fact that the cheque has been encashed, Sri Pradhan came to the bank on 21.07.2006, requested the petitioner to close the account and also filed an application to that effect. As the branch was a loss-making branch the petitioner credited the interest amount to the SB account of Sri Pradhan by debiting the same from P/L account of the branch. After doing that, the petitioner again transferred the amount back to the P/L account. Thus, transaction of paper has been shown in order to make" the branch a profit-making branch. But the account was closed and the amount as due to Sri Pradhan was paid to him on 22.7.2006. A preliminary inquiry was conducted by one Sri Hrusikesh Sahoo, in which Sri Niranjan Nayak deposed regarding transaction of Sri Pradhan with the bank. The statement was recorded on 08.08.2006 in presence of Sri Raghunath Muduli. The petitioner was transferred to Bihar region as a Reliving Officer and he was relieved from Alligonda branch on 05.01.2007 enabling him to join in the new place of posting. The petitioner was communicated with a letter to submit his explanation regarding the irregularities committed by him during his tenure at Alligonda branch. One of the allegations is relating to opening and closing of SB account of Sri Pradhan. It is stated that Sri Pradhan was not eligible to get such huge interest in his said account, but the amount has been credited which was noticed by Head Cashier, consequently reversed the entry which tantamount to attempt to fraud. The petitioner submitted his reply that he had never any intention to commit fraud and all his actions were aimed only to make the branch a profit-making one. So far as the allegation that on being detected by the Head Cashier, he had reversed the amount, the petitioner clarified that the fact is not correct as revealed from the statement of the Head Cashier given on 08.08.2006 before Sri Raghunath Muduli. Having not satisfied with the explanation, a set of charges was framed against the petitioner containing almost same allegations as raised in letter dated 07.02.2007 with an additional charge that during his tenure at Alligonda branch, the petitioner had allowed overdrawing in his O.D. account against the permissible limit for cash withdrawal on five occasion without intimation to the Regional Office. Accordingly, the petitioner was directed to submit his explanations within 10 days from the date of receipt of the letter dated 05.06.2007. The memorandum of charges dated 05.06.2007 did not contain the list of documents and the list of witnesses to be examined on behalf of the Bank. Therefore, another letter was issued on the very same day intimating the list of documents, but the letter was silent about the witnesses to be examined on behalf of the Bank. In any case, the petitioner submitted hi
