Baburaya Naik S. vs Vijaya Bank And Ors.
2002 Latest Caselaw 240 Bom

JUDGMENT

P.S. Patankak, J.

1. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is challenging the orders dated January 21, 1986 and March 3, 1987. By the order dated November 21, 1986 the disciplinary authority found the petitioner guilty under Regulation

3(1) read with Regulation 24 of the Vijaya Bank Officers Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as "Regulations of 1981") and imposed the punishment of withholding one increment permanently which will have effect of postponing his future increment (as next increment which falls due shall be stopped permanently). This came to be

challenged by the petitioner and the appellate authority confirmed it by the order dated March 3, 1987.

2. The petitioner was employed as an officer in the Respondent No. 1 bank's branch at Secunderabad. By the order dated February 13, 1985 issued by the Divisional Manager, he came to be transferred to Adoni branch and by the order of the same date he was relieved from duty. However, when the service of those orders were sought to be effected upon the petitioner, he declined to accept the same and challenged the authority of the Bank Manager. The charge sheet came to be served upon the petitioner dated October 10, 1985. Three charges came to be levelled against the petitioner and he was charged for committing misconduct under Regulation 3(1) and (2) read with 24 of the Regulations of 1981. The three issues came to be framed in respect of the said three charges which read as under:

"(1) Whether on February 13, 1985 at about 5 p.m. at the Bank's Branch at MG Road Secunderabad the CSE was served with Ex. M1 Transfer Order and Ex. M2 Relieving Order and whether the CSE refused to accept the same.

(2) Whether on February 13, 1985 the CSE entered the cabin of MW1 and behaved in an unruly and disorderly manner.

(3) Whether on February 13, 1985 the CSE entered the cabin of MW1 tried to snatch the phone receiver from his hand and tried to assault him as alleged."

3. The Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that in view of the evidence led, issue No. 1-charge No. 1 is proved. But in respect of other two charges of issues he held that there was only evidence of Branch Manager and the said evidence though cannot be said to be false, but he declined to accept the same as there was no corroboration. Hence it was found that other two charges were not proved. The Disciplinary Authority accepted the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer in its report and imposed the above mentioned punishment. The Appellate Authority approved those findings and also the punishment.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondents have failed to prove the charge and in view of the facts and circumstances, it should be held that the said charge was not proved. He next submitted that even assuming that the said charge was proved, it cannot fall under Regulation 3(1) and it was error to find the petitioner guilty under the same-and punish him. He lastly submitted that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner was totally disproportionate and harsh.

5. As against this, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that this Court need not go into the evidence and reappreciate it, considering that this is a petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India. He further submitted that the clear findings have been recorded by the Enquiry Officer and also by the appellate authority, finding the petitioner guilty in respect of charge No. 1 and it requires no interference. He further submitted that the misconduct clearly falls under Regulation 3(1) i. e, to do nothing which is unbecoming of a Branch Officer. He submitted that the punishment imposed is on the lighter side and cannot be said to be disproportionate and harsh considering the misconduct proved.

6. In support of the first submission that it was erroneously found that the petitioner guilty of committing misconduct in respect of charge No. 1, the learned counsel for the petitioner drew our attention to the Criminal Complaint filed on February 13, 1985 in which he alleged that the Branch Manager tried to manhandle him. Then there is letter dated February 14, 1985 addressed to the Divisional Manager Secunderabad pointing out the said assault by the Branch Manager. Then there is letter dated February 24, 1985 addressed to the Divisional Manager, Hyderabad by petitioner pointing out that the transfer order was sent by post and the petitioner did not attend the office at Secunderabad. He was not given a copy thereof and he has not received it by post. Then there is letter addressed to the Branch Manager by the petitioner dated March 4, 1985 stating that he was prevented from serving at the office at Secunderabad branch with effect from February 14, 1985. From this the petitioner

wanted us to hold that the case that is tried to be made out by the respondents about serving the transfer order and relieving order on him was not correct. It is not possible to accept this in view of the positive evidence tendered in the Court and accepted by the Enquiry Officer. Admittedly, there was no reason whatsoever for the Branch Manager for concocting a false case against the petitioner. Admittedly, there were no enemical terms between the Branch Manager and the petitioner prior to February 13, 1985. Further the criminal complaint was not proceeded. The Enquiry Officer first relied upon presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act regarding doing of official business in the usual course and thereafter it was observed:

"..... Apart from the legal presumption discussed above, that would go in favour of the management. The evidence of MW1 in this aspect is corroborated by evidence of MW1, MW2 and MW5. All these witnesses categorically state that they have seen the CSE refusing to accept Ex. Ml, M2 and their evidence on this point has not been shaken by the defence. I would also like to point to the evidence of DW2, regarding the matter of transfer of case on February 13, 1985. DW2 in his evidence states that he heard some shouts from the Manager's cabin that immediately he did not know the reason for the shout but later he came to know that the incident was in connection with the transfer of CSE. So it is evident that whatever incident that has happened in MWl's cabin on February 13, 1985 is in connection with the transfer of CSE from that branch. In the light of this evidence of DW2 and the other evidence CSE's assertion that he was not served with the transfer order and the relieving order on February 13, 1985 and that he had no knowledge of the same falls flat. Under these circumstances it has to be held that Exs. M1 and M2 were served on CSE on February 13, 1985 and that he deliberately refused (sic) it to accept the same ....."

7. Similarly the Appellate Authority affirmed the above after perusing and appreciating the evidence and it was observed;

"....... On perusal of the connected records pertaining to the matter, clearly reveals the facts that the appellant had refused to accept the official communication i.e. transfer order (Ex. M1) and relieving order (Ex. M2) addressed to him on February 13, 1985. The Management witnesses MW1, MW2, MW4 and MW5 speak to the facts that the Ex. Ml and Ex. M2 (Transfer and Relieving Orders respectively) were sent to the appellant on February 13, 1985 for service but the appellant refused to accept the same. The evidence of MW1 in this aspect was corroborated by the evidence of MW1, MW2 and MW5. All these witnesses categorically stated that they had seen the appellant refused to accept the Ex. M1 and Ex-M2 and their evidence on this point has not been shaken by the Defence. Under the circumstances and other connected records, the Enquiry Officer has rightly held that the said allegation was proved ......."

We feel that it will not be possible to reappreciate the evidence in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that P.W.5 who tried to serve the petitioner with the transfer order and relieving order mentioned the time as 1.00 or 2.00 pm. while the charge sheet mentions "about 5.00 p.m." From this he wanted to submit that all these documents on which reliance was placed by the Enquiry Officer and the Appellate Authority were concocted in nature. We may say that it is total misreading the evidence of P. W. 5 Shri K. Ramesh who has stated that he received the cover on February 13, 1985 at about 1.00 or 2.00 p.m. for serving on the petitioner. He has not stated that it was served upon him at that time. The learned counsel then submitted that the charge sheet does not make any mention about the person who has actually attempted to serve the petitioner with transfer and relieving order. In our opinion non-mention thereof in the charge sheet cannot vitiate the proceedings and further it is not possible to describe the evidence false or to hold that no attempt whatsoever was made to

serve the petitioner with the transfer and relieving order. Hence we reject this contention.

9. The learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that charge proved cannot fall under Regulation 3(1). Regulation 3(1) reads as under:

"Every officer employee shall, at all times. take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interest of the Bank and discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty and devotion and diligence and do nothing which is unbecoming of a Bank Officer."

10. By declining to accept transfer and relieving orders issued by the higher authorities is clearly unbecoming of a Bank Officer. It is a different matter that he should have accepted them and challenged on the grounds available to him. In fact he had litigated about this apart from filing the criminal case. He joined the branch at Adoni on May 3, 1985. It is not possible to accept that the conduct of the petitioner was not unbecoming of a Bank

Officer. Therefore, it clearly falls under Regulation 3(1) of the Regulations.

11. The last submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner in respect of punishment being harsh or disproportionate cannot be accepted. First the Disciplinary Authority has considered and imposed the said punishment. Further the Appellate Authority has approved the same. It is well settled that in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court cannot ordinarily interfere with the punishment imposed in departmental enquiry. It is essential for the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority to consider the same. We find nothing to warrant our interference. In addition, we do not feel that the punishment imposed is totally disproportionate or harsh. The discipline in any Organisation is very important and if the Officer behaves in such a manner then it is affected seriously. Such an act on the part of the Officer requires to be viewed seriously as it sends wrong signals to the subordinate staff.

Hence Rule discharged. No costs.