IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the importance of procedural fairness and parity in disciplinary actions, reducing the punishment from dismissal to withholding increments.

ORDER :

Calling in question the order passed by the 3rd respondent – Assistant General Manager-cum-Disciplinary Authority dated 03.11.2011 imposing punishment of dismissal without notice and also the order passed by the 2nd respondent - Deputy General Manager-cum-Appellate Authority vide proceedings dated 20.02.2012 dismissing the Appeal duly confirming the punishment of dismissal, petitioner is before this Court.

2. Petitioner was appointed as Typist-cum-clerk on 17.02.1987 and was re-designated as Data Entry Computer Operator. While so, alleging fraud in various transactions including Branch Office Accounts, a charge memo was issued on 15.03.2010 to which he submitted explanation denying the charges on 29.03.2010. After conducting enquiry, the 3rd respondent communicated Enquiry Report dated 30.05.2011 vide letter dated 13.06.2011. Petitioner submitted his explanation to the Enquiry Report on 08.07.2011. The 3rd respondent issued show cause notice to impose punishment of dismissal from service vide his letter dated 13.09.2011. It is stated that petitioner submitted explanation to the show cause notice on 29.10.2011. However, he was dismissed from service by order dated 03.11.2011. Therefore, he stated to have preferred Appeal to the 2nd respondent on 22.11.2011 which was rejected by order dated 20.02.2012.

It is stated that there is no allegation in the charge sheet that loss has been caused to the 1st respondent by virtue of the alleged misconduct. On the contrary it is alleged that if the actions are proved to be true, then the 1st respondent is likely to incur loss which clearly goes to show that no loss has occurred but it is likely to incur.

Disciplinary proceedings initiated against him are under the provisions of Memorandum of Settlement of disciplinary action procedure for workmen signed between Indian Banks Association and the workmen union at Mumbai on 10.04.2002 (for brevity, referred to as ‘settlement’) and the same has been adopted by the 1st respondent vide circular dated 17.09.2022. Clause 4 of the settlement mandates that during pendency of disciplinary proceedings, if delinquent is put to trial, disciplinary proceedings shall be stayed pending completion of trial. It is relevant to submit that criminal proceedings have also been launched against petitioner and evidence and witnesses in both the criminal proceedings and the departmental proceedings are one and the same. The criminal proceedings are still pending vide Crime No. 220 of 2009. In this view of the mater, the 3rd respondent ought to have suspended the departmental proceedings pending criminal proceedings. The 3rd respondent has grossly violated Clause 4 of the settlement and the law laid down by the Supreme Court.

Since the beginning of the department proceedings, petitioner has been continuously pleading with the 3rd respondent to permit him to examine the original vouchers that are relied on by the 3rd respondent in support of the allegations. Even as on today, he is not permitted for the same and in fact, vouchers were even marked during the enquiry proceedings in support of the allegations. He was not given a fair opportunity to defence his case effectively. Further, in the absence of the said vouchers, being marked as evidence, there is o evidence to link him to the alleged misconduct. Petitioner complains that management exhibits were marked after taking fresh print outs of the transactions but no original vouchers pertaining to original transactions were marked during the course of enquiry. This amounts to the respondents creating evidence which is impermissible. According to petitioner, the 3rd respondent returned a finding of guilt by taking into consideration irrelevant facts and circumstances and leaving out relevant facts. Rule 12 of the Settlement contemplates that petitioner is entitled for a personal hearing by the 3rd respondent before passing any order of punishment. However, the 3rd respondent did not permit him for such a personal hea