Bombay High Court
Shri Kundan Shrawan Humane vs The Chairman Cum Managing ... on 13 December, 2017
Bench: Ravi K. Deshpande
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
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
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.
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,
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,
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
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
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
