Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 149 (ORI)

Sarbeswar Swain v. Allahabad Bank

2005-02-23

I.M.QUDDUSI, N.PRUSTY

body2005
JUDGMENT I. M. QUDDUSI, J. — The petitioner in the instant writ peti¬tion has challenged the impugned order of punishment awarded to him in the Disciplinary Proceeding. He was lowered down by four stages in the time scale vide the impugned order dated 9.3.1989. The petitioner, while working as the Manager in Allahabad Bank, Sunabeda Branch, during the period from 25.08.1980 to 7.8.1988, was the custodian of blank draft leaves, out of which 49 leaves were found to be missing. Subsequently six drafts were presented before the Bhubaneswar branch and Damonjodi Branch of the Allahabad Bank and an amount of Rs.2,77,800.70 was withdrawn. Consequently, a charge sheet was issued against the petitioner on 1.7.1988 inter alia alleging that he was responsible for the same as he was the custodian of the blank draft leaves at the relevant time. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge sheet and thereafter Disciplinary Proceedings were conducted in which the charges were found to have been proved against him. Conse¬quently order of punishment-dated 9.3.1989 lowering him down by four stages in the existing time scale, which he was getting at that time, was passed. By another order of the same date he was reinstated but with the condition that nothing more would be payable to him towards his pay and allowances during the period of suspension. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the General Manager, who was the appellate authority. However, by order dated 20.11.1989, the appeal was dismissed. Being aggrieved, the instant writ petition has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Mohanty, has raised the following contentions :- (1) The documents required by the petitioner for the purpose of submitting his reply to the charge sheet were not supplied to him. (2) The report of the Enquiring Officer was not supplied to the petitioner before passing of the impugned order of punish¬ment; and (3) The punishment awarded to the petitioner is not commen¬surate with the alleged delinquency. (2) The report of the Enquiring Officer was not supplied to the petitioner before passing of the impugned order of punish¬ment; and (3) The punishment awarded to the petitioner is not commen¬surate with the alleged delinquency. We have carefully perused the copies of the documents an¬nexed to the writ petition and found that the Enquiring Officer has dealt with the application of the petitioner regarding supply of the documents and passed orders thereon rejecting the appli¬cation on the ground that some of the documents mentioned in the application of the petitioner had no relevancy with the matter and regarding the remaining two documents he had not specified any particulars or the dates of the said documents and as such they were not identified. Regarding supply of enquiry report, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad, etc. etc. Vs. B. Karunakar, etc. etc. reported in AIR 1994 Supreme Court, 1074, in which the Apex Court has held that the decision in Mohd. Ramzan Khan’s case (A.I.R. 1991 S.C. 471) was per incuriam. It was held that the orders of punishment passed prior to the decision of Mohd. Ramzan Khan’s case without furnishing the report of the Enquiring Officer should not be disturbed. To reopen all the disciplinary proceedings now would result in grave prejudice to administration, which will far outweigh the benefit to the employees concerned. In Mohd. Ramzan Khan’s case (supra), which was decided on 21.11.1990, it was held that the delinquent employee is entitled to receive a copy of the report of the In¬quiry Officer so as to enable him to make representation to the Disciplinary Authority against it. In the case of Managing Direc¬tor, ECIL (supra) the Apex Court has clarified that the said decision made the law expressly prospective in operation. The law laid down there will apply only to those orders of punishment, which are passed by the disciplinary authority after 20th November 1990. No order of punishment passed before that date would be challengeable on the ground that there was failure to furnish the inquiry report to the delinquent employees. The law laid down there will apply only to those orders of punishment, which are passed by the disciplinary authority after 20th November 1990. No order of punishment passed before that date would be challengeable on the ground that there was failure to furnish the inquiry report to the delinquent employees. The proceedings pending in Courts/tribunals in respect of orders of punishment passed prior to 20th November, 1990 will have to be decided ac¬cording to the law that prevailed prior to the said date and not according to the law laid down in Mohd. Ramzan Khan’s case. In the instant case, the impugned order was passed on 9.3.1989, i.e., much prior to the date of judgment of Ramzan Khan’s case, i.e., on 20th November 1990. Therefore, the law laid down in Ramzan Khan’s case would not be applicable to the instant writ petition. In Allahabad Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 also, which are applicable to the services of the petitioner, it has not been provided that the report of the Enquiring Officer shall be supplied to the delin¬quent officer before or after passing of the punishment order. Therefore, in view of the above discussions, it was not necessary to supply copy of the report of the Enquiring Officer to the petitioner before making an order of punishment against him. Regarding third contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the punishment is not commensurate with the delinquency of the petitioner, it is a matter of consideration that the petitioner was posted as a Branch Manager and was the custodian of the blank draft leaves in question. The entire business of the Bank depends upon finance. If draft leaves were lost from his custody causing loss to the Bank to the tune of Rs.2,70,000/- and some odd, it cannot be said that the petitioner is not responsible for the same as held by the Enquiring Officer in his report. The petitioner has been awarded with the lowest punishment under the head of major punishment under the Regula¬tions of the Allahabad Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976. Therefore, in our opinion, it cannot be said that the punishment is not commensurate with the delin¬quency of the petitioner. In view of the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, the writ petition is devoid of merit and, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. N. PRUSTY, J. I agree. Therefore, in our opinion, it cannot be said that the punishment is not commensurate with the delin¬quency of the petitioner. In view of the above-mentioned facts and circumstances, the writ petition is devoid of merit and, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs. N. PRUSTY, J. I agree. Petition dismissed.