Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
J.J. MUNIR, J.
Rahul Ranjan Chaudhary – Appellant
Versus
Chairman/Appellate Authority, Allahabad U.P. Gramin Bank, Lucknow and another – Respondent
Writ A No. 7756 of 2019
Decided on : 27-04-2024
TERMINATION - EMPLOYMENT DISPUTE - Section 49 of the Allahabad U.P. Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010 - The court discussed the procedural requirements for disciplinary actions, emphasizing the necessity of providing a second show-cause notice and a copy of the inquiry report to the employee. It highlighted the importance of natural justice and the need for the employee to demonstrate how the lack of these documents prejudiced their case. The court ultimately concluded that while the procedural flaws existed, they did not result in prejudice to the petitioner, as he failed to provide a plausible defense. The court upheld the disciplinary authority's decision, finding the punishment not shockingly disproportionate to the misconduct.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Assistant Manager at Allahabad U.P. Gramin Bank, was terminated from service following an ex-parte inquiry due to unauthorized absence and allegations of misconduct related to the bank's transfer policy. The petitioner claimed illness during the inquiry and argued that he was not given a fair opportunity to defend himself.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the inquiry was procedurally flawed due to the lack of a second show-cause notice and the inquiry report not being provided to the petitioner. However, it determined that the petitioner did not demonstrate how this lack of notice prejudiced his case, as he failed to present a plausible defense or evidence of his illness.
Issues: 1. Whether the disciplinary inquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice. 2. Whether the punishment imposed was shockingly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that while adherence to natural justice is crucial, the burden lies on the employee to prove that the lack of procedural compliance resulted in prejudice. The court also emphasized that the proportionality of punishment is primarily within the discretion of the disciplinary authority and should only be interfered with in cases of shocking disproportionality.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the termination order and finding no grounds to interfere with the disciplinary authority's decision.
JUDGMENT :
J.J. MUNIR, J.
This writ petition is directed against an order of termination of the petitioner from service dated 03.01.2019 passed by the General Manager, Allahabad U.P. Gramin Bank (now known as Aryavrat Bank) and the appellate order dated 21.02.2019 passed by the Chairman, Allahabad U.P. Gramin Bank, Banda affirming the departmental punishment aforesaid.
2. The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Manager with the Allahabad U.P. Gramin Bank[‘Bank’ for short] on 17.04.2015 and joined service at the Regional Office of the Bank at Mahoba. The petitioner says that he performed his duties from 20.04.2015 to 21.01.2016, without complaint.
He was transferred from the Regional Office, Mahoba to the Branch Panwari, Mahoba vide order dated 02.01.2016. The petitioner was directed to join duties on 04.01.2016 at Branch Panwari. The petitioner joined duties on 04.01.2016 and discharged his obligations until 26.06.2017 at the said branch. On 27.06.2017, the petitioner was transferred from the Panwari Branch to Branch Gahrauli, Mahoba. The petitioner says that he was taken seriously ill and admitted on 28.06.2017 to the care of Dr. A.A. Jafri, where he remained an indoor patient until 13.07.2017. Once certified fit, he approached the Regional Manager of the Bank at Mahoba, who issued a transfer order dated 27.07.2017, permitting him to join as Assistant Manager at Branch Gahrauli. The petitioner submitted his joining report on 28.07.2017 along with the fitness certificate. He was permitted to join duties in compliance with the transfer order dated 27.07.2017. He says that after joining at Branch Gahrauli, he has continuously discharged his duties as the Branch Manager. The petitioner performed his duties as the Branch Manager from 28.07.2017 to 04.05.2018 at Branch Gahrauli. He was, thereafter, transferred vide order dated 04.05.2018 to the Regional Office of the Bank at Bahraich.
3. While proceeding to join at Bahraich on 04.05.2018, the petitioner was taken seriously ill. He was hospitalized the same day by his family members and relatives, again in the hospital at Kalyanpur, Kanpur under the care of Dr. A.A. Jafri. The fact was intimated to the Regional Manager, Regional Office, Mahoba and further, from time to time, the petitioner asserts that he kept the Regional Manager informed about his illness caused by liver infection. After regaining his health, he went to join his duty at the Regional Office, Bahraich. The petitioner has annexed on record applications sent to the Regional Manager, intimating him of his illness and requesting leave as Annexure-5. These applications are dated 04.04.2018, 20.05.2018, 21.06.2018 and 16.07.2018.
4. While the petitioner was undergoing treatment at the Kalyanpur Hospital, he was served with a charge-sheet dated 23.05.2018 by registered post sent on his residential address. The charges against petitioner number three and can be better understood by a reference to each of these, as set out in the statement of imputation accompanying the formal charges. The formal charge-sheet and the statement of imputation was served under a covering memo dated 23.05.2018. These charges read :
"main bhi pareshan hun bank transfer policy ko lekar paise lekar transfer karte hne ye sab log tabhi to kuch khaas log apne ghar ki sabse najdeek branch me bethe huye hne aur hun sab naye joining ke ladke bas inki politics ka shikaar ho jate ine aur yeh sab janha man karta hai hamara transfer kar dete kynuki hum ne unhe transfer ke badle paise ni diye hne agar aisa karenge to ye bahut galat hai iska samarthan ni karna chahiye".
5. It appears that the petitioner did not, or as he says, could not file a reply to the charge-sheet, owing to his illness. The inquiry proceeded ex- parte. An Inquiry Report dated 24.10.2018 was submitted to the Disciplinary Authority. It is the petitioner’s case that in consequence of the inquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority passed the impugned order dated 03.01.2019, terminating his servi
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.
The disciplinary authority must provide reasons for disagreement with the inquiry report, record its own findings on the charges, and provide the government servant with an opportunity to file a writ....
The court upheld the dismissal of the petitioner for gross misconduct, affirming that disciplinary authorities' findings are not to be interfered with unless perverse or illegal.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the punishment imposed must be proportionate and in accordance with the principles of natural justice, and the failure to supply relevant docu....
Punishment in disciplinary proceedings must adhere to principles of natural justice and be proportionate to the misconduct; excessive punishment may warrant judicial intervention.
The court emphasized that it would not sit in appeal over the findings of the Departmental Authority and would not re-appreciate the evidence which has come before the Departmental Authority. The cou....
The judgment emphasizes the limited scope of interference in departmental proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 and the importance of justifying the penalty imposed.
The standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings is based on preponderance of probabilities, and the court does not reappraise evidence unless there is a violation of natural justice.
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
