The High Court of Calcutta, while disposing of a petition filed questioning the justifiability of the order of punishment, and praying for the issue of a writ of mandamus commanding the concerned respondents to release the petitioner’s gratuity and other admissible dues, held that the omission to disclose the list of witnesses and list of documents and failure to supply the documents or to afford an opportunity to inspect the document would vitiate the entire decision-making process and the disciplinary proceeding.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner joined the United Commercial Bank (in short, the bank) as an Assistant Cashier-cum-Godown Keeper on 09.09.1977. Due to his unblemished career, the petitioner was consistently promoted over time. Some people coerced the petitioner into signing certain loan documents. Later, the petitioner received a purported order of suspension. The petitioner submitted his response to the show-cause notice issued to him within the time specified therein but without considering the same, the bank decided to proceed further. Subsequently, the order of suspension was revoked. Later, the petitioner was debarred from participating in the promotion process for a period of five years from the date of the order of punishment.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that the point of territorial jurisdiction had not been raised at the time of admission of the writ petition. He contended that since the situs of the appellate authority is within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, the petitioner can invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent submitted that this Court has got no territorial jurisdiction to entertain this writ petition. During his tenure as Branch Manager of Deokhajuri Branch, Bhopal, M.P., the petitioner indulged in ‘several acts of irregularities, omissions, and commissions in granting credit facilities and violated the extant guidelines of the bank in the matter of the processing, verification, disbursement, and monitoring of loans’.
Observations of the court:
The court noted that there is no room for hesitation to conclude that in the case at hand, as the appellate authority constituted within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, this Court has got territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition.
The Court observed that the scope of judicial review must be confined to the decision-making process but if it is found that the decision is perverse, irrational, or grossly disproportionate, that decision will come under the purview of judicial review. If the court finds that the authority has acted arbitrarily with a closed mind and in violation of the rules of natural justice and in derogation of the statutory rules, the Court can extend the compass of judicial review to render justice. The Court said that the non-disclosure of particulars of evidence and non-supply of the documents to the delinquent employee would amount to a violation of natural justice and the omission to disclose the list of witnesses and list of documents and failure to supply the documents or to afford an opportunity to inspect the document, as the case may be, would vitiate the entire decision-making process and the disciplinary proceeding.
The decision of the Court:
The Calcutta High Court, disposing of the petition, held that the order of punishment and the order of the appellant authority are set aside.
Case Title: Tarun Kumar Dutta v Chairman, UCO Bank & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee
Case No.: WPA 9585 of 2011
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Sudip Ghosh
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Sudip Pal Choudhury
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
