INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJUDICATUREATCALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE RESERVED ON: 20.03.2025 DELIVERED ON: 22.04.2025 PRESENT:

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE TAPABRATA CHAKRABORTY AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE REETOBROTO KUMAR MITRA MAT 1990 OF 2023 ABHISHEK NAG - VERSUS –

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS THE ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE (E-OBC) & OTHERS Appearance:

Mr. Soumya Majumder, Ld. Sr. Adv.

Ms. Sanjukta Dutta, Adv. ….. for the Appellant Ms. Parna Roy Choudhury, Adv .….. for the Bank/Respondents Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.:

1. The MAT No.1990 of 2023 arises out of WPA No. 7994 of 2021, the writ petition being dismissed by the impugned judgment passed on 2nd August, 2023 by a learned Single Judge of his Hon’ble Court upholding the penalty/punishment imposed by the concerned authority of the Oriental Bank of Commerce, which has presently merged with the Punjab National Bank.

2. The brief facts leading to the writ petition are as under:

(i) The petitioner /appellant herein was appointed on 7th April, 2010 as an officer of the Oriental Bank of Commerce in the Junior Manager Grade Scale-1, as a probationary officer for the period of 2 years.

(ii) Sometime on 24th October, 2017, the appellant was transferred from his present assignment at Jangipur Branch of the Oriental Bank of Commerce, which thereafter merged with the Punjab National Bank (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) to Dhamra Port as the Branch Manager. The appellant was thus relieved from the Jangipur Branch on 1st November, 2017. A memo dated 11th January, 2018 was issued proposing to hold an inquiry against the petitioner on two grounds, (a) that he was absent unauthorisedly from his duty since 2nd November, 2017 and(b) had left the station without obtaining prior permission of the competent authority. Thus, these were the only two grounds for which charges had been framed for violation of regulation 13(1) and 13(2) of the Oriental Bank of Commerce Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1982 (hereinafter referred to as the said regulation) read with regulation 24.

3. The Inquiry Authority (hereinafter referred to as the IA) submitted its report on 4th June, 2018, holding that the charges against the appellant herein have been proved. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority (hereinafter referred to as the DA), by its order dated 3rd August, 2018, imposed the penalty on the appellant: removal from service which shall not operate as a disqualification for future employment. The appellant preferred a statutory appeal and the Appellate Authority (hereinafter referred to as the AA) by its order on 4th January, 2019 rejected the appeal and upheld the penalty imposed by the DA. The appellant thereafter preferred a review petition against the order of the AA, which was however rejected by the Reviewing Authority (hereinafter referred to as the RA) confirming the penalty imposed by the AA, by its order of 18th September, 2019.

4. Mr. Majumder, learned senior advocate appearing for the appellant submits the appellant had not been able to join the new assignment at Dhamra Port due to his serious physical ailment, which was intimated to the concerned authority of the Bank, which was however ignored by the Bank without making any reply thereto. The act of absence was neither wilful nor deliberate and was indeed for a valid reason, relating to a medical ground. The IA conducted the inquiry in hot haste without affording an opportunity to cross examine the Management Witnesses (MW-2) and to present his defence.

5. Mr. Majumder has also raised an issue, that the charge sheet was principally on two grounds:

i. Unauthorised leave of absence;

ii. Leaving station without permission and not joining within the date at the new station.

However, the charge sheet seems to have an additional charge, which almost ranges in the nature of the ground of insubordination, though the same has not been mentioned in such uncertain terms.

6. According to Mr. Majumder, the punishment imposed was disprop