ORAL JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

Date : 05-12-2024 The appellant is a nationalized bank, aggrieved with the judgment of the learned Single Judge, which interfered with the punishment awarded to an employee, in pursuance of a disciplinary inquiry conducted, wherein the Charge-sheeted Officer (CSO) was found guilty of the misconduct alleged. The respondent, the CSO, stood suspended pending inquiry; a charge-sheet having been issued to him dated 08.11.2005. The suspension period was also treated as period spent not on duty.

2. The facts leading to the misconduct alleged were that, the CSO, while he was employed as Manager at the Regional Office, Muzaffarpur, he was arrested by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and detained in custody from 09.08.2005 in connection with a criminal charge/offence committed by him while working as Manager at Bokaro Steel City Branch, Bokaro. His suspension was as per Regulation 12(2)(a) of Canara Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (for brevity ‘Regulations’ hereinafter), which mandated that if an employee is detained in custody, whether on a criminal charge or otherwise, for a period exceeding forty-eight hours, he shall be placed under suspension. The misconduct alleged against the CSO, which is seen from Annexure-4, was that while he was the custodian of one set of double lock keys of the branch at the Bokaro Steel City, the Central Board of Secondary Education (for short ‘CBSE’) had sent the question papers of All India CBSE Pre- Medical Test/Pre-Dental Test, 2003 in sealed packets to the said branch for safe custody; apart from other branches of the Bank. The sealed packets were received on 10.04.2003 and kept in safe custody under double lock of the branch; of which lock, one key was in the possession of the CSO and the examinations were to be held on 27.04.2003. It was alleged that the CSO had taken out one packet of question papers from the double lock on

19.04.2003, having connived with outsiders, and facilitated copying of the question papers, leading to its leakage and placed the original question papers, re-packed and sealed in the original condition under double lock, on 21.04.2003.

3. The statement of imputations alleged that on

19.04.2003, a Saturday, when cash was taken out, one packet of the question paper was taken out without the knowledge of Shri V.K. Srivastav, Officer who was the other key-holder, and the CSO, clandestinely carried the packet of question paper in an envelope outside the strong room and kept the packet in his table drawer for the whole day. On the next day, i.e. 20.04.2003, a Sunday, he opened the branch premises and took out the cover containing the question papers and reached Reliance Hotel at around 11:00 A.M. where he met Shri Rajeev Jha, Shri Shiv Nandan Singh and Shri Amrendra, who opened and copied the questions in the presence of the CSO, which was subsequently re-packed, sealed and handed over back to the CSO. The CSO kept back the packet of question paper inside the double lock on 21.04.2003, again clandestinely, when one Shri Vinod Kumar was holding the second set of keys.

4. The inquiry was conducted wherein three Management Witnesses (for short ‘MWs’) were examined as MW-1, MW-2 and MW-3. The CSO was found guilty of the offences based on the evidence led at the inquiry, which resulted in the punishment of dismissal and the further order of the Disciplinary Authority that the period of suspension would be treated as one spent, not on duty for any purposes including for increment for the period, which would not be released. The dismissal was also stated to be a disqualification for future employment.

5. The CSO challenged the order before this Court in a writ petition, in which the learned Single Judge interfered with the punishment and observed that since the writ-petitioner had crossed the age of superannuation, there could be no resumption of the inquiry; also since the charge-memo was issued as earl