The High Court of Jharkhand quashed an order of dismissal from service and held that it is settled legal propositions that issuance of 2nd show-cause notice along with a copy of the enquiry report is the sine qua non and inflicting the punishment that also of dismissal, without seeking a reply by way of 2nd show-cause notice, is not tenable in the eyes of law.
Brief Facts:
The petitioner served as a Credit Officer at the Ranchi Main Branch of Jharkhand Gramin Bank. An FIR was filed against three individuals by the bank's then-manager, alleging a fake transaction within the bank. Importantly, the petitioner was not initially accused in this FIR. Another FIR was lodged by the same Manager, stating that an amount was inappropriately credited to an account associated with the petitioner, but later returned. The bank issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner, seeking an explanation. However, the petitioner could not respond on time due to the unavailability of certain required documents from the bank. Subsequently, the petitioner was arrested and suspended by the bank. The bank then issued another show-cause notice to the petitioner, but, inadvertently, the petitioner could not submit a response. Consequently, the bank decided to initiate departmental proceedings against the petitioner and served him with a charge sheet. During the departmental proceedings, the petitioner participated through a representative, but crucial documents requested by the petitioner to mount a proper defence were not provided. The departmental inquiry found the petitioner guilty of the charges. The petitioner eventually submitted a response, but without issuing a second show-cause notice or providing a personal hearing, the bank passed an order of dismissal from service, which also typically disqualifies the petitioner from future employment. The petitioner appealed the decision, which was subsequently confirmed, leading to the current appeal.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner contended that the action of the respondents is illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction and most of the charges levelled on the petitioner are related to the alleged transactions made 10 years back and during the course of departmental proceeding when he asked the Presenting Officer to produce the documents related to those old transactions, the same was denied on the ground that the same was not available in the Branch and the non-supply of relevant documents has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner as if those documents had been brought on record, then the petitioner would have certainly in a better position to explain as to what has happened 10 years back. It is further contended that the respondents should have taken a lenient view at the time of awarding punishment taking into account 27 long years of unblemished service career of the petitioner. It is further contended that without giving 2nd show-cause notice or any opportunity of hearing, the respondents have awarded the petitioner a major punishment of dismissal from services, which is a clear-cut violation of the principle of natural justice, and the money wrongly credited was properly identified and the mistake was also rectified right after getting information.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent contended that the order of dismissal was issued which was later affirmed by the Appellate Authority and the Respondent had served a memorandum calling explanation to the petitioner which was subsequently replied to and being not satisfied with the reply of the petitioner and considering the grave offence alleged to have been committed by him and there was the likelihood of Bank sustaining huge financial losses, it was decided to initiate a departmental proceeding in which the petitioner was held guilty of the charges levelled against him and as such, the Disciplinary Authority issued order of dismissal. It was further argued that during the course of departmental proceedings, the proper opportunity was given to the petitioner to present his case and most of the documents were also provided except one or two which were not in possession of the respondents and, it was asked from the petitioner and his representative that whether they want to produce any other defence witness or evidence but they answered in negative, so it is wrong to say that petitioner was not afforded the opportunity to present his case.
Observations of the court:
The court observed that the punishment of dismissal is too harsh and disproportionate and as such, the same is fit to be quashed as the non-supply of relevant documents caused serious prejudice to the petitioner and it has been admitted by respondents that some of the documents were not available with the respondents and as such, the same could not be supplied to the petitioner.
The court further observed that when a particular document was relied upon by the delinquent, the same was to be served to him seeking his reply, and in the case of non-supply of the same, the enquiry report would be termed to be perverse and Petitioner had an unblemished service career of 27 long years but the same was not considered by the respondents while inflicting punishment upon him and The respondents ought to have considered his unblemished service career of 27 long years which does not warrant at least major punishment of dismissal. The court further stated that it is settled legal propositions that issuance of 2nd show-cause notice along with a copy of the enquiry report is the sine qua non and inflicting the punishment that also of dismissal, without seeking a reply by way of 2nd show-cause notice, is not tenable in the eyes of law.
The court held that the amount in question has already been returned by the petitioner, there is no loss to the respondent and it is not a case of the respondents that the petitioner had defalcated any amount and the money wrongly credited in another’s account has already been returned and the mistake was rectified after getting information. The court further held that normally the high court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not interfere with the concurrent findings of the two authorities and re-appreciate the evidence but certainly when the punishment order shocks the conscience, the same has to be interfered with.
The decision of the Court:
The court allowed the petition.
Case Title: Devendra Prasad Yadav vs. Jharkhand Gramin Bank and Otr.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice S.N. Pathak
Case No.: W.P.(S). No. 1432 of 2016
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. L.C.N. Shahedeo, Mr. Sahadeo Choudhary
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. A. Allam
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
