1 WP515.13.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 515 OF 2013
Shri Kundan Shrawan Humane,
aged : 45 years, Occ. Nil,
Plot No. 67, Janki Nagar, Behind
Bhagyalaxmi Sabhagruha, Ring Road,
Nagpur : 440 034. PETITIONER
...VERSUS...
1. The Chairman cum Managing Director,
Dena Bank, Head Office, Dena
Corporate Centre, C - 10, G Block,
Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East),
Mumbai : 400 051
2. The Assistant General Manager
[Appellate Authority], Dena Bank,
Regional Office, Cavas Arcade,
Shalimar, Nashik : 422 001
3. The Chief Manager & Disciplinary Authority,
Dena Bank, Regional Office,
Cavas Arcade, Shalimar,
Nashik : 422 001...... RESPONDENTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Petitioner in person.
Shri S.D.Khati with Shri Fuladi, counsel for Respondent nos. 1 to 3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM: R. K. DESHPANDE, AND
M.G.GIRATKAR, JJ.
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 22 nd NOVEMBER, 2017 .
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 13 th DECEMBER, 2017.
::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2017 02:05:47 :::
2 WP515.13.odt
JUDGMENT (Per R.K.Deshpande, J.)
1] The petitioner was working as Officer Scale-I in the respondent Dena Bank, Branch at Mumbai. Upon his request, he was transferred from Mumbai to Nashik on medical ground on 21.06.2006. Thereafter, he was transferred to Akola on 14.07.2008 and on 30.04.2009, he was transferred to Gondumri in District Bhandara. The petitioner reported on duty at Gondumri on 13.05.2009 and thereafter remained absent continuously and did not report on duty to the branch at Gondumri.
2] On 12.08.2009, the petitioner was transferred from Gondumri to Nashik, where the petitioner did not join, though, according to the respondent Management, he was relieved from Gondumri on 13.08.2009. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 01.12.2009, calling upon him to explain as to why action should not be initiated against him for his continuous absence without any intimation and for disobedience of the orders passed by the superior officers for joining at Nashik. The petitioner submitted his reply on 14.12.2009, which was not found to be satisfactory and hence, statement of allegations and the charge sheet was ::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2017 02:05:47 ::: 3 WP515.13.odt issued to the petitioner on 01.01.2010.
3] It was alleged against the petitioner that he has failed to report on duty at Gondumri Branch from 14.05.2009 without information or prior sanction of leave from the competent authority and though, he was relieved on 13.08.2009 upon his transfer at Nashik, he did not join the duty. The statement of allegations in brief levelled against the petitioner are reproduced below.
" Statement of Allegations During his tenure as officer at Gondumari Branch from 13.05.2009, subsequently his posting to RO, Nashik vide transfer memorandum dated 12.08.2009 and his relieving from the branch on 13.08.2009, Shri K.S.Humane is absenting himself from duties without any information or prior sanction of leave. In spite of advising him to report for duties, he has not reported for duties till date. His such unauthorized absence has adversely affected the smooth functioning of branch/office. The details are as under:-
1. Consequent upon his transfer to Nashik Region vide memorandum dated 12.08.2009 and not reported till date, Shri K S Humane was posted to Gondumari Branch. Subsequent to his reporting at Gondumari Branch on 13.05.2009, he is absenting himself from the duties from 14.05.2009 unauthorisedly without information or prior sanction of leave from the competent authority.
2. The Branch Manager, Gondumari vide his letter/s dated 08.07.2009 has advised Shri Humane to resume his duty. However, Shri Humane did not resume his duty and continued to remain absent from his duties unauthorisedly.
3. Shri Humane was transferred to Regional Office, Nashik, vide transfer memorandum No. RON/PER/TR/ C-128/ 2009, dated 12.08.2009. Accordingly, he has relieved from Gondumari branch on 13.08.2009 with a instruction to report ::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2017 02:05:47 ::: 4 WP515.13.odt at Regional Office. He was also advised by Regional Office vide letter/s dated 26.08.2009 and 22.09.2009 to report for duties immediately.
4. Inspite of above, when Shri Humane did not report for duties, a Show Cause Notice No. RON/PER/ DISC/ N-112/ 2009 dated 01.122009 was issued to him. His reply dated 14.12.2009 to the said show cause Notice was not found to be satisfactory, hence he was once again advised vide letter dated 24.12.2009 to report to Regional Office immediately with proper justification/ documentary proof for his unauthorized absence. However, till date, he has not reported at RO for his duties.
5. The above acts of Shri Humane is not desirable as a reasonable officer of the bank and his such unauthorized absence has adversely affected the smooth functioning of branch/office.
6. His aforesaid acts also amounts to disobedience of lawful instructions of superiors."
4] It was alleged that the aforesaid acts amounts to misconduct in terms of Regulations 3 and 13 read with Regulation 24 of the Dena Bank Officers Employees (Conduct) Regulation, 1976 and punishable under Dena Bank Officers Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulation, 1976. The petitioner was charged that - (i) he has failed to discharge duties with utmost devotion and diligence;
(ii) disobedience of lawful orders of superiors; (iii) doing acts prejudicial to the interest of bank; (iv) unauthorizedly absenting from duties and (v) doing acts of unbecoming of an Officer/Employee.
::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2017 02:05:47 :::
5 WP515.13.odt
5] An enquiry was conducted against the petitioner,
who was subsequently removed from service by an order dated 27.07.2010. The petitioner challenged this by filing Writ Petition No. 4539 of 2011, which was partly allowed on 14.03.2012, directing fresh enquiry to be held. Accordingly, enquiry was completed against the petitioner on 07.05.2012 and 08.05.2012. The petitioner was accordingly removed on the basis of the enquiry report by an order dated 25.06.2012. The departmental appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed on 05.08.2012, confirming the order of punishment. Hence, this writ petition.
6] The petitioner has placed on record written notes of argument. The contention of the petitioner is that, though he reported on duties at Gondumri on 13.05.2009, he tendered his request for grant of leave on medical ground, as he was receiving treatment at Nagpur for his heart ailment. However, the same was not considered, but, on the contrary, petitioner was transferred from Gondumri to Nashik on 12.08.2009. The petitioner protested against this transfer on 07.08.2009 on several grounds including medical ground and family problems. By issuing legal notice dated 12.10.2009, ::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2017 02:05:47 ::: 6 WP515.13.odt the petitioner requested for grant of posting at nearby places at Nagpur, which was not considered and hence, Writ Petition No. 541 of 2010 was filed. According to the petitioner, after the decision in Writ Petition No. 4539 of 2011, fresh enquiry proceedings were conducted hastily and within a period of 3 days, the examination of witnesses was completed and hearing was concluded.
7] According to him, the order of removal from service, passed on 05.08.2012, was without application of mind and even framing of charges against him is with ulterior motive. It is also the contention raised by the petitioner that the punishment order was issued by the Chief Manager/Disciplinary Authority, who is subordinate to the Assistant General Manager and the order of removal can only be passed after obtaining prior permission from the General Manager (H.R.M) of the Personnel Department. According to him, it is the Assistant General Manager or the Deputy General Manager who is competent to sanction order for prosecution and impose punishment. The order is, therefore, liable to be set aside.
8] The Management examined three witnesses,
::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2017 02:05:47 :::
7 WP515.13.odt
whereas the petitioner examined two witnesses in the inquiry. The fact that the petitioner was continuously absent from duty at Gondumri from 14.05.2009 till his transfer to Nashik on 12.08.2009 is not disputed. From the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, it seems that there is no material placed on record by the petitioner to show that he submitted any application along with a certificate of Doctor for grant of leave or that any such leave on medical ground was sanctioned. The oral intimation said to have been given by the petitioner is not at all proved in the oral evidence. The Enquiry Officer does not accept the oral evidence of the petitioner. Though, the petitioner was advised to join duties on 08.07.2009, the petitioner failed to obey the order and no explanation is found in respect of it.
9] The petitioner was asked to report on duty on or before 10.09.2009 at Nashik, which he failed to comply. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 541 of 2010 challenging his transfer from Gondumri to Nashik, which he withdrew on 28.09.2011. The petitioner was removed from service on 27.07.2010 and Writ Petition No. 4539 of 2011 filed by him challenging the order of removal was partly allowed on ::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2017 02:05:47 ::: 8 WP515.13.odt 14.03.2012. Thereafter enquiry against the petitioner was conducted on 07.05.2012 and 08.05.2012. The petitioner was removed from service on 25.06.2012 and the appeal filed by him against the removal was dismissed on 05.08.2012.
10] The petitioner does not dispute his continuous absence from 14.05.2009 to 01.01.2010. He was advised to join the duty on 08.07.2009, but he disobeyed it. The petitioner was relieved on transfer to Nashik from Gondumri on 13.08.2009 and thereafter two letters were given to him on 26.08.2009 and 22.09.2009 to join the duty. The petitioner did not comply with it. The explanation furnished by the petitioner that on 14th/15th May, 2009 he had telephonically informed the Branch Manager about his absence on medical ground has not been established. 11] In view of the aforesaid circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere in the orders impugned and the findings recorded by the Enquiry Committee which are based upon purely appreciation of evidence. We do not find any perversity in recording such finding. There is no ::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2017 02:05:47 ::: 9 WP515.13.odt procedural illegality or irregularity prejudicially affecting the rights of the petitioner.
12] In the result, writ petition is dismissed. No order as to cost.
JUDGE JUDGE
Rvjalit
::: Uploaded on - 14/12/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 15/12/2017 02:05:47 :::