Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 532 (PNJ)

Bholi Malhotra v. Bank Of Baroda

2009-03-20

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL

body2009
Judgment SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. The petitioner was working as Scale-II officer in Bank of Baroda. She was charge-sheeted for major penalty under Bank of baroda Officer Employees (Discipline and appeal) Regulations, 1976 for her unauthorised absence from duty from August 31, 2005 to december 23, 2006, which caused prejudice and injury to the interests of the bank, and for insubordination for not carrying out the instructions of the higher authorities to report for duty and getting herself medically examined by Civil Surgeon at Jalandhar. On these allegations, the enquiry was conducted, and she was given full opportunity to defend herself. The Enquiry Officer submitted the enquiry report holding all the charges proved against her. Copy of the report was submitted to her. After providing her further opportunity of hearing to the proposed punishment, she was removed from service, which shall not be disqualification for future appointment. The appeal filed by her against the said order has been dismissed by the Appellate Authority. The petitioner has challenged those orders in this writ petition. 2. Counsel for the petitioner raised two-fold submission. Firstly that at one point of time the Enquiry Officer ordered to discontinue the enquiry proceedings on the ground that the petitioner had accepted her charges and expressed that a lenient view be taken in the matter as she had already joined her duty at kennedy Avenue Branch, Amritsar, and subsequently, the Punishing Authority in an arbitrary manner did not accept the said order passed by the Enquiry Officer and directed him to continue the enquiry. On the basis of the said enquiry report, the petitioner was illegally removed from service. Secondly, the punishment given to the petitioner, in the facts and circumstances of the case, on account of her absence from duty is highly disproportionate and deserves to be quashed. 3. After considering the aforesaid submissions of the counsel for the petitioner and going through the impugned orders, I do not find any merit in this petition. I have perused the order dated December 27, 2006 (Annexure P5) of the Enquiry Officer as well as the order of the Punishing Authority dated february 9, 2007 (Annexure P6 ). 3. After considering the aforesaid submissions of the counsel for the petitioner and going through the impugned orders, I do not find any merit in this petition. I have perused the order dated December 27, 2006 (Annexure P5) of the Enquiry Officer as well as the order of the Punishing Authority dated february 9, 2007 (Annexure P6 ). Vide order dated February 9, 2007, the Punishing authority has rejected the aforesaid order dated december 27, 2006 of the Enquiry Officer after coming to the conclusion that the said order was passed without any application of mind and the same was not in the interest of the bank. He ordered to conduct the departmental enquiry afresh after setting aside the findings of the earlier Enquiry Officer. Thereupon, a fresh enquiry was conducted. The petitioner was provided full opportunity to defend the charges. After considering the evidence, the Enquiry officer found the petitioner guilty. Thereafter the impugned order of punishment was passed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any illegality in rejecting the earlier report of the Enquiry Officer and for conducting the fresh inquiry. In the fresh inquiry, the petitioner was given full opportunity to defend herself. Therefore, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the enquiry proceedings. 4. The second argument of the learned counsel that the impugned punishment was highly disproportionate and deserves to be quashed, in my opinion, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the same is not acceptable. Undisputedly, the unauthorised absence from duty is more than one year three months. It was alleged by the petitioner that during that period she remained in bad health. She submitted medical certificates issued by dr. Mukesh Alipuria, but the same were not accepted and she was specifically advised by a written letter to get herself medically examined by Civil Surgeon, Jalandhar, but she did not get herself medically examined by Civil Surgeon, jalandhar, and deliberately chosen to remain absent. In these facts and circumstances, in my opinion, the punishment awarded to the petitioner cannot be said to be disproportionate. 5. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed.