Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1960 (HP)

Roshan Lal Thakur v. Punjab National Bank And Anr

2019-12-19

TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2019
JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. - The petitioner passed his middle examination in the year 1967 and thereafter passed his matriculation in the year 1969. The respondent-Bank issued circular No.2 dated 20.4.1972, whereby it put a complete embargo on over qualified persons for being recruited to subordinate staff. 2. On 10.3.1981, the petitioner joined as Peon in the subordinate staff cadre in the respondent-Bank, wherein he claimed his educational qualification to be 8th standard pass. He also submitted an undertaking dated 25.3.1981 to the effect that he has studied only up to 8th standard and has not studied any further. He concealed the fact that he had passed his matriculation from the then Vijay High School, Mandi, under Punjab University, Chandigarh in 1969. However, nonetheless, the petitioner was permitted to continue in service for nearly 30 years and it was only on 26.12.2011 that a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner alleging therein that the petitioner had gained the employment as Peon in sub staff cadre in the respondent-bank by hiding his higher educational qualification. The petitioner submitted his reply admitting the charges, but at the same time, he requested the authorities to take a sympathetic view as he had put in about 31 years of service with unblemished record. However, the respondent-Bank did not find reply of the petitioner to be satisfactory and accordingly appointed the Inquiry Officer, who submitted his report on 24.1.2012 holding that the charges against the petitioner stood proved. The disciplinary authority then proceeded to impose upon the petitioner major penalty of compulsory retirement from Banks services specified under Regulation 4(h) of PNB Officer Employees (D&A) Regulations, 1977. 3. Aggrieved by the action of the disciplinary authority, the petitioner submitted an appeal on 4.4.2012, which was repeated by representation dated 19.6.2012, but the same eventually came to be dismissed vide order dated 31.8.2012. Thereafter, the respondent-Bank vide PPO, dated 17.11.2012 sanctioned pension of the petitioner at 2/3rd, but did not pay the leave encashment constraining the petitioner to file the instant petition for grant of following substantive reliefs:- a) to issue a writ of certiorari/mandamus or direction in nature thereof, quashing the impugned circular No.2 dated 20.4.1972 (Annexure P-1),whereby an embargo of possessing the higher qualification for being appointed to the subordinate staff in the respondent Bank was put which an embargo was illegal and arbitrary by holding it as ultra vires and discriminatory. b) to issue a writ of certiorari or direction in nature thereof, quashing the impugned charge sheet dated 26.12.2011 (Annexure P-2), Inquiry report dated 24.1.2012 (Annexure P4), order passed by the respondent-Bank on 18.2.2012 (Annexure P-5), impugned order dated 31.8.2012 (Annexure P-8), order dated 7.11.2012 (Annexure P-9) and 11.12.2012 (Annexure P-10) being illegal and arbitrary. c) to issue a writ of mandamus, appropriate writ, order or direction in nature thereof, directing the respondents to have allowed the petitioner to continue on his post till his normal age of superannuation with all consequential benefits and thereafter pay all the pensionary benefits to the petitioner along with full consequential benefits and interest thereon @ 18% pa from due date till payment thereof. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the material placed on record. 5. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had gained employment in the respondent-Bank by hiding (expression used by the respondent-Bank) his higher educational qualification and thereafter again continued in service. Once that is admitted position, then obviously, the petitioner is liable to be not only proceeded with departmental inquiry, but also required to be punished accordingly, though at the same time having a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily and exercise of power has to be in a reasonable manner with an objectivity having due regard to the facts of the case. 6. However, moot question is whether in the given facts and circumstances, the penalty of compulsory retirement and granting 2/3rd pension is commensurate to the misconduct. 7. It needs to be noticed that there are certain judgments of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, wherein the Court has deprecated the criteria of maximum qualification for the posts of Peon. 8. Reference in this regard can conveniently be made to the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Mohd. Riazul Usman Gani vs. District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur, (2000) 2 SCC 606 which, in turn, has been followed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in a later judgment in Life Insurance Corporation of India vs. Triveni Sharan Mishra, (2014) 10 SCC 346 , wherein it was observed as under:- In our opinion, in the present case the High Court has rightly relied on the law laid down by this Court in Mohd. Riazul Usman Gani and Ors. Vs. Riazul Usman Gani and Ors. Vs. District and Sessions Judge, Nagpur and Ors., (2000) 2 SCC 606 wherein it has deprecated the criteria of maximum qualification for the post of peons. Relevant parts of para 16 and para 18 of the said judgment are quoted herein below: "16. In the present case we find that the candidates with higher education than Standard VII were completely shut out for being considered for the posts of Peons. The Recruitment Rules also provide for promotion. Rule 3(ii) we may quote: "(ii) The District Judge may promote- a Peon, a Watchman, a Gardener, or a Sweeper to the post of Bailiff: a Peon, a Watchman, a Gardener, a Sweeper or a Bailiff to the post of a Regional (Language) Section Writer, an English Section Writer or a Clerk; and a Peon, a Watchman, a Gardener, a Sweeper, a Bailiff, a Regional (Language) Section Writer, and English Section Writer or a Clerk to the post of Stenographer". xx xx xx xx xx 18. If the appointment of a candidate to the post of Peon is restricted to his having qualified up to Standard VII he will have no chance of promotion to the post of Regional Language Section Writer or Clerk..............". 9. However, the fact still remains that the petitioner had concealed the fact that he was a matriculate at the time of his appointment as Peon in the respondent-Bank. 10. While dealing with identical facts and circumstances in Triveni Sharan Mishra''s case (supra), the Hon''ble Supreme Court directed stoppage of increments for two years with cumulative effect as is evident from paras 13 and 14 of the judgment, which read as under:- 12. However, on behalf of the appellants it is contended that suppression of material information and making false statement to secure the employment, is a serious offence to attract the dismissal of service. In this connection, learned senior counsel for the appellants referred to the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and Ors vs. Ram Ratan Yadav, (2003) 3 SCC 437 . But in our opinion, the aforesaid case referred on behalf of the appellants cannot be applied to the present case for the reason that in the said case the employee had concealed the facts relating to his character and antecedents. But in our opinion, the aforesaid case referred on behalf of the appellants cannot be applied to the present case for the reason that in the said case the employee had concealed the facts relating to his character and antecedents. In said case, the employee who was selected for the post of a Teacher suppressed the information that a criminal case relating to offences punishable under sections 323, 341, 294, 506-B read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code was registered against him. As such the facts in the present case cannot be equated with the case referred. 13. From the papers on record before us, it appears that for mentioning less qualification to secure the job, similarly situated another employee (one Daluram Patidar) was let off by the Life Insurance Corporation of India by awarding punishment of stoppage of increments for two years with cumulative effect. We are of the opinion that the High Court has rightly taken note of said fact while allowing the writ petition, and directing the employer to consider the imposition of similar penalty after reinstatement of the writ petitioner. 11. I see no reason to take a different view from the one taken by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Triveni Sharan Mishra''s case (supra), and even otherwise, Article 141 of the Constitution of India provides that the law declared by the Hon''ble Supreme Court shall be binding on all courts within the territory of India. Therefore, once the Hon''ble Supreme Court has decided the issue by passing a reasoned order, a fortiori, the ratio decidendi declared in the said decision would be binding on all the courts in the country for giving effect to it while deciding the lis of the same nature. All the courts are under legal obligation to take note of the said decision and decide the lis in conformity with the law laid down therein. 12. Having said so, I find merit in this petition and the same is partly allowed and the major penalty of compulsory retirement imposed upon the petitioner vide order dated 18.2.2012 (Annexure P-5) shall now stand substituted with punishment of stoppage of increments for two years with cumulative effect. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. No order as to costs.