Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1166 (DEL)

D. B. MADAN v. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

2008-12-16

S.MURALIDHAR

body2008
JUGMENT 1. This appeal challenges the impugned orders dated 22nd October 2008 and 19th November 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in CM Application Nos. 14502 of 2008 and 15637-38 of 2008 respectively in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7481 of 2008. 2. The Appellant was employed with the Respondent No.1 Punjab National Bank (Bank) since 1976. A show cause notice was issued to him on 25th April 1992 regarding serious lapses/irregularities in respect of the account of M/s. Pankaj Finance and Leasing Limited during his tenure as the Manager of the Connaught Place Branch of the Bank in the year 1989. According to the appellant, he replied to this notice and nothing was done by the Bank thereafter. The date of superannuation of the Appellant was 30th June 2007. A month prior to his retirement i.e. on 2nd June 2007 a show cause notice dated 30th May 2007 was issued to him alleging that while working as Manager at Connaught Place Branch, he failed to follow Banks prescribed systems and procedures and protect the interest of the Bank in respect of the account of M/s. Pankaj Finance and Leasing Limited. The Appellant replied to the show cause notice on 12th June 2007 pointing out that the present show cause notice was issued 18 years after his alleged tenure at the Connaught Place Branch and was, therefore, without legal basis. He requested that his retiral benefits on his superannuation should be released to him. The Bank passed an order dated 28th June 2007 stating that since the disciplinary proceedings initiated by the show cause notice dated 30th May 2007 were likely to continue beyond the date of his superannuation, the Appellant would not be entitled to payment of superannuation benefits, except his own contribution to provident fund, till the disciplinary proceedings were completed and final orders were passed thereon. 3. The Appellant then filed Writ Petition No. 1290 of 2008 in this Court seeking quashing of the Banks show cause notice dated 30th May 2007 and the consequential order dated 28th June 2007. 3. The Appellant then filed Writ Petition No. 1290 of 2008 in this Court seeking quashing of the Banks show cause notice dated 30th May 2007 and the consequential order dated 28th June 2007. This Court by an order dated 15th September 2008 disposed of the writ petition with the following direction: In view of the above and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, the present writ petition is disposed of with directions to the respondent to take a conscious decision on the impugned show cause notice dated 30.05.2007 within a period of four weeks from today under intimation to the petitioner so that in case he is aggrieved by the said decision of the respondent, he may take his legal remedies against the same as may be available to him in law. There shall be no order as to costs. 4. Thereafter a charge sheet dated 6th October 2008 was issued to the Appellant. This led to the Appellant filing Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7481 of 2008 in this Court challenging the charge sheet dated 6th October 2008 and the order dated 28th June 2007 denying him his retiral benefits till the conclusion of the enquiry. Along with the writ petition, the Appellant filed an application seeking stay of the disciplinary proceedings. 5. By the first impugned order dated 22nd October 2008 the learned Single Judge declined to stay the departmental inquiry proceedings pursuant to the charge-sheet dated 6th October 2008 but directed that no final order should be passed till further orders of this Court. The Appellant filed another application CM No. 15638 of 2008 seeking a stay of the inquiry proceedings. This was declined by the second impugned order dated 19th November 2008. 6. We have learned counsel for the parties. 7. The relevant applicable regulations are the Punjab National Bank (Officers) Service Regulations 1979 (Regulations). Regulation 20 (3) (ii) and (iii) which are relevant for the present purpose reads as under: 20 (3) (ii) Disciplinary proceedings shall be deemed to be pending against any employee for the purpose of this regulation if he has been placed under suspension or any notice has been issued to him to show cause why disciplinary proceedings shall not be instituted against him and will be deemed to be pending until final orders are passed by the Competent Authority. (iii) The officer against whom disciplinary proceedings have been initiated will cease to be in service on the date of superannuation but the disciplinary proceedings will continue as if he was in service until the proceedings are concluded and final order is passed in respect thereof. The concerned officer will not receive any pay and/or allowance after the date of superannuation. He will also not be entitled for the payment of retirement benefits till the proceedings are completed and final order is passed thereon except his own contribution to CPF. 8. On the strength of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ramesh Chandra Sharma v. Punjab National Bank 2007 (8) Scale 240, it is contended by learned counsel for the Respondent that it was permissible for the Respondent Bank to continue the disciplinary proceedings in the instant case in terms of Regulation 20 (3) (iii). On the other hand learned counsel for the Appellant sought to place reliance on the judgment in UCO Bank v. Rajinder Lal Capoor-I (2007) 6 SCC 694 which has been reiterated in the subsequent judgment in UCO Bank v. Rajinder Lal Capoor-II (2008) 5 SCC 257 . 9. At the outset we notice that the judgment in Ramesh Chandra Sharma has no application as far as the present case is concerned. The question there was whether the disciplinary proceedings which commenced prior to the superannuation of the employee in the said case on 31st January 1997 could be continued thereafter. The question in the present case however is whether the disciplinary proceedings had in fact been initiated against the Appellant in terms of Regulation 20 (3) (iii) read with Section 20 (3) (ii) of the Regulation prior to his superannuation. This question appears to have been considered by the Supreme Court in UCO Bank v. Rajinder Lal Capoor-I (supra) while interpreting the identically wording regulation governing the Officers of the UCO Bank. It was explained that the departmental proceeding, it is trite law, is not initiated merely by issuance of a show cause notice. It is initiated only when a charge sheet is issued. Consequently it was held that the respondent having been allowed to superannuate, only a proceeding, inter alia, for withholding of his pension under the Pension Regulations could have been initiated against him. Discipline and Appeal Regulation were not attracted. 10. It is initiated only when a charge sheet is issued. Consequently it was held that the respondent having been allowed to superannuate, only a proceeding, inter alia, for withholding of his pension under the Pension Regulations could have been initiated against him. Discipline and Appeal Regulation were not attracted. 10. This was reiterated by the Supreme Court in Rajinder Lal Capoor-II where it was explained that 1979 Regulations would be attracted when no disciplinary proceeding is possible to be initiated. It was explained that the 1976 Regulations would however be attracted when disciplinary proceeding is initiated. In terms of 1976 Regulations drawing up of a charge sheet by the disciplinary authority is the first step for initiation of a disciplinary proceeding, and that unless and until, a charge sheet is drawn up, a disciplinary proceeding for the purpose of the 1976 Regulations cannot be initiated. 11. In the instant case it is an admitted position that the charge-sheet was not drawn up prior to the superannuation of the Appellant. Prima facie therefore it appears that the Appellant is made out a case for grant of stay of further disciplinary proceedings. 12. In the result, the impugned orders dated 22nd October 2008 and 19th November 2008, to the extent that they reject the prayer for stay of the inquiry proceedings, are hereby set aside. It is directed that further proceedings in the departmental inquiry pursuant to the charge sheet dated 6th October 2008 issued to the Appellant will remain stayed till the disposal of the writ petition. 13. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we request the learned Single Judge to expedite the disposal of the writ petition. We clarify that the observations in this order are prima facie and only for the purpose of considering the question of stay of the inquiry. The writ petition will be decided on its merits independent of the observation in this order. 14. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed with the above directions. The pending application also stands disposed of.