IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MANINDER S. BHATTI

th

ON THE 16 OF OCTOBER, 2025 WRIT PET. (SERVICE) No. 345 of 2003 PURUSHOTTAM LAL KORI Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Appearance:

Shri Pranay Gupta - Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri S.K. Rao - Senior Advocate with Shri Sukhendra Kushwaha -

Advocate for the respondents.

ORDER This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 10.01.2001 passed by the respondent No.2, by which, imposing the extreme penalty of dismissal as well as warning.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Clerk-cum-Cashier in the respondent Bank on 21.10.1982 at Regional Office, Rewa. On 10.01.1987, he was transferred to Sagar Branch of the respondent Bank. During an audit carried out in year 1996 at Sagar Branch, certain irregularities were noticed regarding deposits in Bank’s Expenditure Account involving the present petitioner. In view of the said irregularities a show-cause notice dated 05.07.1997 was issued to the petitioner which is contained in Annexure P/4 seeking his explanation. The petitioner submitted a reply to the said show cause notice on 01.09.1997 contained in Annexure P/5. Unsatisfied with the reply of the petitioner, a departmental enquiry was initiated against him on 10.08.1998. The Enquiry Officer found that the present petitioner had committed serious misconduct and also found that the charges levelled against him, have been duly proved and submitted the findings to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority after affording personal hearing to the petitioner, imposed a punishment of dismissal from the services for proved misconduct prejudicial to the interest of bank vide order dated 07.12.1999 (Annexure P/2). Being aggrieved by the order of Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority (Respondent No. 2) which came to be dismissed vide order dated 10.01.2001 (Annexure P/1). Thereafter, a Mercy Appeal was preferred before Respondent No. 1, which is still pending. Hence, this petition challenging the impugned orders passed by the Disciplinary as well as the Appellate Authority.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that it is a peculiar case where the petitioner has been punished without even issuing any charge- sheet to him. It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the employer is making a futile attempt to project that the memorandum contained in Annexure P/4 is a charge-sheet whereas in the case in hand, no charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner and only a show cause notice was issued which is contained in Annexure P/4. The said show cause notice was replied to by the petitioner vide Annexure P/5 and thereafter, no charge-sheet was issued and directly enquiry proceedings were initiated which ultimately ensued in passing of the impugned order imposing the aforesaid penalties.

4. It is contended by the counsel that as per the Settlement on the Industrial Disputes between certain Banking Companies and their Workmen, 1966 hereinafter referred to as " the Bipartite Settlement" which contains the service regulations pertaining to the Banking Companies which stipulate that there should be gross misconduct in order to attract the major penalty as per Clause 19.5 of the Bipartite Settlement. As per Clause 19.7 of the Bipartite Settlement, the minor penalty can be imposed for minor misconduct. The show cause notice which was issued to the petitioner reflects that the petitioner was intimated that the gross misconduct was on the part of the petitioner as his act was prejudicial to the interest of the bank and the negligence at the behest of the petitioner resulted into a serious monetary loss. In the said show cause notice itself, the minor misconduct was also mentioned i.e. negligence in performing the duties as well as breach of any rule of business