Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
O.Chinnappa Reddy and Gurnam Singh JJ.
Lachhman Dass Aggarwal
Versus
Punjab National Bank
Civil Writ Petition No. 6963 of 1976,
Decided On : JULY 26, 1977
BANKING COMPANIES (ACQUISITION AND TRANSFER OF UNDERTAKINGS) ACT, 1970 - SECTION 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 16, 18, 19 - PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK - STAFF DEPARTMENT CIRCULAR NO. 20 DATED OCTOBER 28, 1952 - DISMISSAL OF EMPLOYEE - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - FAIR PLAY - REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO SUBMIT EXPLANATION - SUPPLY OF DOCUMENTS - COPYING OF DOCUMENTS - TAKING NOTES - BREACH OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - REINSTATEMENT WITH CONSEQUENTIAL BENEFITS AND COSTS.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an employee of Punjab National Bank, was served with a notice alleging that he had accepted bribes from certain borrowers for granting loans. The petitioner requested copies of the statements of the borrowers and the reports of the inspector and area manager who had investigated the matter, but the bank refused to provide them. The petitioner was allowed to peruse the statements but was not permitted to copy them or take notes. He was subsequently dismissed from service.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the bank's refusal to provide the petitioner with copies of the statements and reports was a breach of the principles of natural justice incorporated in Staff Department Circular No. 20 dated October 28, 1952, which required the bank to provide the employee with a charge-sheet and to consider his explanation before taking disciplinary action. The court also held that the bank's refusal to allow the petitioner to copy the statements or take notes was a denial of a reasonable opportunity to submit his explanation.
Issues: 1. Whether the Punjab National Bank is an "authority" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. 2. Whether the Staff Department Circular No. 20 dated October 28, 1952, has statutory force. 3. Whether there has been any breach of the provisions of Circular No. 20.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Punjab National Bank is an "authority" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India because it is a body corporate created by statute, wholly owned by the Central Government, and subject to the control and direction of the Central Government. 2. The court held that the Staff Department Circular No. 20 dated October 28, 1952, has statutory force because it was issued pursuant to statutory powers and continues to govern the relations between the bank and its employees. 3. The court held that there has been a breach of the provisions of Circular No. 20 because the bank refused to provide the petitioner with copies of the statements and reports, and refused to allow him to copy the statements or take notes.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, quashed the order of dismissal, and directed the reinstatement of the petitioner with all consequential benefits and costs.
O.Chinnappa Reddy, J.
1. The petitioner was an employee of the Punjab National Bank, a nationalised bank. On December 6, 1974, the Assistant Regional Manager of the bank issued a notice to the petitioner asking him to explain why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for certain alleged malpractices. It was stated in the notice that certain complaints had been received against the petitioner, that the complaints had been investigated by an inspector and that certain malpractices were noticed. The malpractices were stated to be as follows :
"1. The undernoted borrowers have given written statements to the investigating officer, duly attested by Oath Commissioner, Mohindergarh, that they paid the amount, mentioned against each, to you as bribe for getting loan from the bank :
Rs.
(a) Ram Chander, son of Rachpal Singh
50
(b) Bishan Lal, son of Kabur Chand
150
(c) Sant Lal, son of Jai Dayal
75
(d) Tirath Dass, son of Hari Chand
90
(e) Ratti Ram, son of Kabur Chand
150
Shri Mool Chand, son of Bihari Lal, has given written statement duly attested by Oath Commissioner, Mohindergarh, that you demanded Rs. 100 as bribe for granting loan to him. He was agreeable to pay the sum of Rs. 100 but you increased your demand and asked for payment of Rs. 200 as bribe which he could not pay."
2 The petitioner was asked to submit his explanation within ten days from the receipt of the notice. On December 20, 1974, the petitioner requested the Regional Manager to furnish him with copies of the complaints said to have been made against him as also copies of the statements of the parties. The petitioner mentioned that there was no such attestation by any Oath Commissioner as stated in the notice. The petitioner further mentioned that the area manager, Rohtak, had visited Mohindergarh twice on a fact-finding mission. The petitioner requested that copies of the reports of the inspector and the area manager might also be supplied to him. To this letter, the assistant regional manager sent a reply advising the petitioner to call at the office on any working day " for consulting the relevant records". The petitioner appears to have made a request to the regional manager that he should be allowed to copy the documents at the time of inspecting them. By his letter dated Febrdary 20, 1975, the regional manager informed the petitioner that bis request for copying the documents was untenable. He was told that he could only go through the relevant records and submit his explanation. He was given seven days time for submitting his explanation. On February 26, 1975, the petitioner once again wrote to the regional manager bringing to his notice the circumstance that in all previous enquiries copies of documents were made available. He also brought to the notice of the regional manager that the enquiry by the inspector was irregular and illegal as the enquiry was conducted behind his back without affording him any opportunity for defending himself. He pointed out that the enquiry by the area manager was not vitiated in any such manner. He reiterated his request for supply of documents. The regional manager by his letter dated April 7, 1975, once again denied the request for supply of copies and called upon the petitioner to submit his explanation within ten days. On April 26, 1975, the petitioner once again requested the regional manager to furnish him with copies of the relevant documents. He denied the allegations made against him. He further stated that the alleged statements referred to in the original show-cause notice were never "attested" as claimed. The " attestations" were fabricated and forged. He also submitted that the area manager who enquired into the matter earlier had found that the so-called attestations were all forged, the persons who had appeared before him having so stated. On July 20, 1976, the regional manager issued a notice to the petitioner proposing the punishment of discharge from service, holding that the petition
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
