Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 837 (RAJ)

Harish Chandra Bakliwal v. UCO Bank

2014-04-03

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition seeks to challenge the order of penalty dated 30.3.1991 by which recovery of a sum of Rs. 64,000 has been ordered to be made from pay or other allowances as may be due to petitioner to the extent of pecuniary loss caused to the bank on account of non-recovery of loan amount disbursed to six borrowers and the order dated 19.9.1996 whereby his representation there against has been rejected by the Zonal Manager. 2. Shri K.C. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the inquiry officer has exonerated the petitioner of the charges about negligence and thus did not hold him responsible for any pecuniary loss caused to the bank. Even then the disciplinary authority did not agree with the finding of the inquiry officer and by recording dissent therewith, it straightway imposed the penalty. Learned counsel argued that before recording the finding, no notice, nor opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner. Petitioner has represented against the order of penalty to the Zonal Manager of the respondent-bank, who however rejected the said representation on 19.9.1996. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the money has been deducted only in the year 1996 when the petitioner submitted a representation to the Zonal Manager, and therefore, the petition cannot be said to suffer from any delay. Learned counsel relied on the judgement of Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra- (1998) 7 SCC 84 and judgement of this Court in Sambhu Singh v. State & Anr.-2007 (5) WLC (Raj.) 566. 3. Shri C.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed because it has been filed belatedly in the year 1998 after seven years of the order of penalty. On merits, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no provision in the UCO Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 for giving opportunity of hearing and notice of disagreement. In this connection, learned counsel referred to sub-clause (2) and (3) of Regulation 7 of the said Regulations, which are reproduced in para 5 of the reply by the respondents. 4. In this connection, learned counsel referred to sub-clause (2) and (3) of Regulation 7 of the said Regulations, which are reproduced in para 5 of the reply by the respondents. 4. On hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the impugned orders, I find that the objection of delay is not sustainable because when the show cause notice of the writ petition was issued to the respondents by this Court on 21.4.1998, the respondents filed reply to the writ petition in which they did not raise any such objection and it was thereafter that the writ petition was admitted by order dated 2.4.2003 despite objection of delay by the respondents. Even otherwise, the writ petition has remained pending before this Court for last 16 years and therefore it would be too harsh upon the petitioner to dismiss the writ petition on the ground of delay especially when enormous delay is there on the part of this Court in deciding the writ petition. Moreover, when the money has been deducted from the GPF of the petitioner in the year 1996, that gave fresh cause of action to the petitioner to approach the Zonal Manager by making representation on 19.9.1996. The Zonal Manager has entertained and rejected that representation on merits and not on the ground of delay, which is evident from the following order: "In this connection, we have to advise that we have examined the matter and found that the recovery from your salary was commenced as the Authorities had come to the conclusion that all efforts were made by the Branch to recover the Bank's dues in the relevant borrowal accounts. In spite of the same, the dues remained unrecovered and therefore, the Authorities had ordered for recovery of the same from your salaries." 5. Coming now to the basic arguments that have been pleaded in para 4 to 6 of the writ petition namely; (1) that the inquiry officer exonerated the petitioner, (2) the disciplinary authoirty recorded disagreement with the finding of inquiry officer and (3) that the disciplinary before doing so, did not serve any notice to the petitioner, nor provided any opportunity of hearing to him. These facts being not disputed, the order of the respondents cannot be sustained. 6. These facts being not disputed, the order of the respondents cannot be sustained. 6. Contention that there is no provision in the Regulations for providing opportunity of hearing or notice to the delinquent while recording disagreement by the disciplinary authority with the finding of inquiry officer, true in sub-clause (2) of Regulation 7 of the Regulations, it is provided that the disciplinary authority, shall if it disagrees with the findings of the inquiring authority on any article of charge, record its reasons for such disagreement and record its own findings on such charge, if the evidence on record is sufficient, but implicit therein is the requirement of observance of principle of natural justice. No disciplinary authority can while disagreeing with the finding recorded by the inquiry officer, technically impose the penalty unless it is apprised of the delinquent of his foundation to disagree and provide him reasons of such disagreement and obtain his representation. The Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank, supra while interpreting the same Regulations 7(2) in para 19 of the report made following observations: “19. The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and given to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer." 7. In view of above, the writ petition deserves to be succeed and is accordingly allowed. The impugned orders dated 30.3.1991 and 19.09.1996 are quashed and set aside. The action of the respondents in making recovery of the amount of Rs. 64,000 is declared illegal. In view of above, the writ petition deserves to be succeed and is accordingly allowed. The impugned orders dated 30.3.1991 and 19.09.1996 are quashed and set aside. The action of the respondents in making recovery of the amount of Rs. 64,000 is declared illegal. The respondents are directed to refund the amount to the petitioner together with interest @ 9% per annum within a period of two months from the date copy of this judgement is produced before them.Writ petition succeeds. *******