Bombay High Court
Rajeshkumar S/O Manikchand Jain vs Bank Of Maharashtra Through Its ... on 30 September, 2022
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar, Urmila Sachin Phalke
J.wp4946.2021.odt 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO.4946 OF 2021
Rajeshkumar s/o Manikchand Jain
Aged about 60 years,
Occupation - Retired from Bank Service,
R/o. House at Plot No.41,
2nd Floor, Kannamwar Nagar,
Wardha Road,
Nagpur - 440025
...PETITIONER
VERSUS
1. Bank of Maharashtra,
through its Managing Director,
Head Office, "Lokmangal",
1501, Shivajinagar,
Pune - 411005
2. The Executive Director & Appellate
Authority,
Bank of Maharashtra,
Head Office, "Lokmangal",
1501, Shivajinagar,
Pune - 411005
3. General Manager,
Human Resource Management
Department,
Bank of Maharashtra,
Head Office, "Lokmangal",
1501, Shivajinagar,
Pune - 411005
...RESPONDENTS
______________________________________________________
Shri Akshay Sudame, Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri M.G. Bhangde, Sr. Advocate with Shri S.S. Sarda,
Advocate for the respondents.
______________________________________________________
J.wp4946.2021.odt 2
CORAM : A.S. CHANDURKAR AND
URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, JJ.
DATED : SEPTEMBER 30, 2022.
JUDGMENT (Per Urmila Joshi-Phalke, J.)
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. RULE. Rule made returnable forthwith.
3. By this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order
of Disciplinary Authority imposing punishment by an order dated
02/05/2019 and order passed by the Appellate Authority and Review
Committee which has denied interference in the order passed by the
Disciplinary Authority in the enquiry proceedings.
4. The petitioner was initially appointed as General Clerk on
15/07/1982 in the respondent No.1-Bank of Maharashtra. Subsequently
he was promoted to the post of Deputy Manager, Manager, Senior
Manager, Chief Manager and also as Assistant General Manager. He
retired from service on 31/08/2019 on attaining the age of
superannuation. While petitioner was working as a Chief Manager,
Loan Tracking Cell, Recovery Department, Head Office, Pune in
respondent No.1-Bank he was served with the charge-sheet bearing
No.AX-1/ST/DM/E-759/839/2018-19/853 dated 10/12/2018 under
Regulation No.8 of the Bank of Maharashtra Officer Employees'
(Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976. That on receipt of the
charge-sheet dated 10/12/2018, the petitioner vide communication
dated 18/12/2018 requested the Disciplinary Authority to provide him
copies of the documents on which the allegations were based or allowed
him to visit the concerned branch to verify the documents, so that he
could prepare his statement of defence. The respondent No.1-Bank had
not replied his communication but served impugned punishment order
No.AX-1/ST/DM/E-759/164/2019-20/154 dated 02/05/2019 informing
that the copies of the documents on which the allegations were based
were already sent to him on 02/01/2019 to enable him to submit his
reply but the petitioner had not submitted his statement of defence
inspite of reminder dated 21/01/2019. Therefore, the Disciplinary
Authority after going through all the records came to the conclusion that
the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved and imposed the
punishment of "reduction in time scale of pay by one stage for a period
of six months with cumulative effect." On 03/05/2019, in accordance
with the order passed by the Disciplinary Committee, Administrative
Order was issued by which the said punishment was implemented with
effect from 02/05/2019 though the petitioner was retired on
31/08/2019. It was further directed that there would be no restoration
of increments. It is the contention of the petitioner that though it is
mentioned in the impugned order dated 02/05/2019 that the copies of
the documents were sent to him on 02/01/2019 and reminder dated
21/01/2019 but in fact, no such documents or reminder was delivered
to him and, therefore, he could not prepare a statement of defence
against the charge levelled against him.
5. The petitioner applied under the Right to Information Act,
2005 (hereinafter referred to as the 'R.T.I.' in short) vide application
dated 04/05/2019 addressed to respondent No.1-Bank for seeking
information and copies of the documents stated to have been supplied
by the Bank on 02/01/2019 and the reminder dated 21/01/2019 with
proofs of their delivery. But the said information/copies of the
documents were not supplied to the petitioner and no response was
given to the petitioner till 27/05/2019. Thereafter the petitioner had
preferred his appeal on 28/05/2019 before respondent No.2-Appellate
Authority who is the Executive Director of the Bank of Maharashtra
mentioning all the facts and prayed for setting aside the impugned
punishment order dated 02/05/2019 and requested to exonerate him
from all the charges levelled against the petitioner in the interest of
justice.
6. During the pendency of the appeal, respondent No.1-Bank
supplied the information with reference to his application under the
R.T.I. vide letter No.AX1/Legal/R11/2019-20/17360 dated
29/05/2019. By this letter it was informed to him that proof of delivery
and office copy of the letter dated 21/01/2019 were not traceable and
there was no such note prepared for issuance of order dated
02/05/2019. It is the contention of the petitioner that this reply to his
R.T.I. application is sufficient to show that no reasonable opportunity
was given to him to defend his case. He further contended that he had
filed appeal before the Appellate Authority on the ground that no
reasonable opportunity was given to him and principle of natural justice
are not complied with. But the Appellate Authority ignored the same
and dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved with the order of the
Appellate Authority he preferred Review Petition before respondent
No.3-the Reviewing Authority by mentioning all the relevant facts and
prayed to set aside the impugned order passed by the Disciplinary
Authority as well as the Appellate Authority dated 24/06/2019 and
prayed to exonerate him from all the charges. The Reviewing Authority
had also not considered his contention and dismissed the Review
Petition without assigning any reason. Being aggrieved with the same
he filed present petition on the ground that the reasonable opportunity
was not granted to him. The Disciplinary Authority as well as the
Appellate and the Review Authority had not considered the principles of
natural justice and erroneously dismissed the appeal and review
petition. He submitted that the opportunity to defend himself was not
given to him. Immediately, after receipt of charge-sheet on
18/12/2018, he informed respondent No.1-Bank that no enclosures are
found with the memorandum. The copies of the documents on which
the allegations are based should have been enclosed with the
memorandum enabling him to peruse the same for preparing his
statement of defence and requested to provide him the copies of the
documents but instead of supplying him copies, the Disciplinary
Authority passed the punishment order which is contrary to the
Regulations framed by respondent No.1-Bank which are known as Bank
of Maharashtra Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations,
1976. Thus, the action on the part of respondent No.1-Bank is arbitrary,
illegal and liable to be set aside.
7. The petition was opposed by the respondents on the ground
that the relevant documents not only supplied to the petitioner but
reminder was also given to the petitioner dated 21/01/2019 asking him
to submit his statement of defence. After sufficient opportunity the
petitioner had not submitted the statement of defence enquiry was
proceeded. The Disciplinary Authority on going through the allegations
and documents on record passed an order and imposed minor
punishment by reducing his time scale of pay for a period of six months
without cumulative effect. Therefore, the grounds mentioned by the
petitioner are not available to him. The writ petition is devoid of merits
and liable to be dismissed.
8. Heard Shri Akshay Sudame, learned Counsel for the
petitioner. He reiterated the contentions that the reasonable and
sufficient opportunity was not granted to the petitioner to defend
himself. He also invited our attention towards the communication of the
petitioner addressed to respondent No.1-Bank for seeking material
documents from respondent No.1-Bank. He further submitted that till
27/05/2019 there was no communication from the Bank about
supplying of the documents. The petitioner had filed an application
under the R.T.I. which was also not responded and without hearing the
petitioner the order of punishment was passed. Against the said order
the petitioner had preferred an appeal raising the ground that the
reasonable and proper opportunity was not granted to him but the
Appellate Authority had also ignored the same. Though the Appellate
Authority referred to a note being placed before the Disciplinary
Authority, as per information supplied under the R.T.I. Act, 2005 no
such note was prepared. Therefore, he approached to respondent No.3-
the Reviewing Authority with the same ground. However, the
Reviewing Authority had also not considered his contention. He further
submitted that the reply submitted by respondent No.1-Bank in respect
of his R.T.I. application showed that the communication by which the
documents are supplied to him are not traceable as well as there was no
process of noting that the said documents were supplied to the
petitioner. He further submitted that though the respondents relied
upon the extract of outward register but it only showed that there was
an entry in the name of the petitioner and the letter was handed over to
the Messenger. There was absolutely no evidence to show that the said
documents are delivered to the petitioner. The procedure prescribed by
the Bank of Maharashtra (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 was
not followed. Thus, entire material on record was sufficient to show
that the reasonable and sufficient opportunity was not granted to the
petitioner and, therefore, the Reviewing Authority be directed to
consider the Review Application afresh by considering the grounds
mentioned therein.
9. In support of his contention he relied upon Narinder Mohan
Arya Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. And ors. (2006) 4 SCC 713
wherein it is held that the Appellate Authority while disposing of the
appeal is required to apply his mind with regard to the factors
enumerated in sub-rule (2) of Rule 37 of the Rules. It is further held
that an Appellate order if it is an agreement with that of disciplinary
authority may not be a speaking order but the authority passing the
same must show that there had been proper application of mind on his
part as regards the compliance with the requirements of law while
exercising his jurisdiction. He further placed reliance on Divisional
Forest Officer Kothagudem and ors. Vs. Madhusudhan Rao (2008) 3
SCC 469 wherein it is held that it is no doubt also true that an appellate
or revisional authority is not required to give detailed reasons for
agreeing and confirming an order passed by the lower forum but, in our
view, in the interest of justice, the delinquent officer is entitled to know
at least the mind of the appellate or revisional authority in dismissing his
appeal and/or revision. It is true that no detailed reasons are required
to be given, but some brief reasons should be indicated even in an order
affirming the views of the lower forum. He further placed reliance on
Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin
Bank Vs. Jagdish Sharan Varshney and ors. (2009) 4 SCC 240 wherein it
is held that the appellate order should disclose application of mind.
Whether there was an application of mind or not can only be disclosed
by some reasons, at least in brief, mentioned in the order of the
appellate authority.
10. On the other hand, Shri M.G. Bhangde, learned Senior
Counsel for the respondents submitted that reasonable and sufficient
opportunity was granted to the petitioner before passing an order. No
reply to show cause notice is filed and, therefore, there is no denial of
facts by the petitioner. Disciplinary Authority issued the reminder to the
petitioner but the petitioner has not replied and, therefore, respondent
No.1-Bank proceeded with the further proceedings and passed the order.
No illegality is committed by the Disciplinary Authority. Under
Regulation 8, supply of documents while imposing minor penalty was
not warranted. The procedure for imposing major penalty was different
from the procedure for imposing minor penalty. Punishment order was
passed by the Disciplinary Authority after four months. The petitioner
could have filed his reply during the said period. The learned Counsel
also made a reference to the dispatch register to show service of
necessary documents. The writ petition was devoid of merits and liable
to be dismissed. In support of his contention he placed reliance on
I.D.L. Chemicals Ltd. Vs. T. Gattaiah and ors. 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 573
wherein it is held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that the penalty of
stoppage of two increments simpliciter was imposed upon the appellant.
He was given a charge-sheet and his explanation was called and taken
into consideration. Nothing more need to be done so far as the
procedure for imposing minor penalty is concerned. No fault can be
found with the penalty of stoppage of two increments imposed by the
Bank upon the appellant. He further placed reliance on Syed
Rahimuddin Vs. Director General, CSIR and ors. (2001) 9 SCC 575
wherein it is held that during the continuance of the enquiry the
delinquent making no grievance on that score but subsequently making
a representation in that regard and the enquiry officer rejecting the
same as a tactic to stall the enquiry. In such circumstances, the
delinquent, held, could not be said to have been really prejudiced by
non-supply of the documents. He further placed reliance on State Bank
of India and ors. Vs. Narendra Kumar Pandey (2013) 2 SCC 740 wherein
it is held that fair procedure does not mean giving of copies of
documents or list of witnesses along with charge-sheet though statement
of allegations has to accompany charge-sheet when required by service
rules. It is further held that where charged officer faced to attend
enquiry he cannot contained that inquiring authority should not have
relying upon documents which were not made available or disclosed to
him. He further placed reliance on Shri I.D. Gupta Vs. Delhi
Administration through Chief Secretary, Delhi Administration and ors.
(1973) 2 SLR 1 wherein it is held that the insistance on the documents
was without any relevance. The petitioner never took up the plea in
reply to the show cause or in the appeal filed before the responent No.3.
The petitioner has not been able to show how and in what manner he
has been deprived of the chance of fully explaining his defence as
required to the charge-sheet. He further placed reliance on Maharashtra
State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Vs. K.S.
Gandhi and ors. (1991) 2 SCC 716 wherein it is held that strict rules of
evidence Act and standard of proof envisaged therein do not apply do
departmental proceedings or domestic tribunals. It is open to the
authorities to receive and placed on record all the necessary relevant,
cogent and acceptable material facts though not proved strictly in
confirmity with the evidence act. He further placed reliance on
Dharmarathmakara Raibahadur Arcot Ramaswamy Mudaliar
Educational Institution Vs. Educational Appellate Tribunal and anr.
(1999) 7 SCC 332 wherein it is held that there was no enquiry in terms
of Section 6 of the Act. In a case where the facts are almost admitted,
the case reveals itself and is apparent on the face of the record and in
spite of opportunity no worthwhile explanation is forthcoming as in the
present case, it would not be a fit case to interefere with the termination
order. State of Gujarat Vs. Gajanand M. Dalwadi (dead) by LR's (2008)
1 SCC 716 wherein it is held that in absence of even a bare denial, the
charge has rightly been held to be proved by the Disciplinary Authority.
The fact that no license was issued in the said numbers at any point of
time. Thereafter is of no consequence. Himachal Pradesh Road
Transport Corporation and anr. Vs. Hukam Chand (2009) 11 SCC 222
wherein it is held that employees own admission of misconduct.
Enquiry in such an eventuality held not necessary. It is further held that
compliance with the principles of natural justice, either by holding an
enquiry or by giving the employee an opportunity of hearing or showing
cause is necessary where an employee proposes to punish an employee
on a charge of misconduct which is denied or any term of condition of
employment is proposed to be altered to the employee's disadvantage
without his consent.
11. Heard both the sides. Perused the record. The petitioner
herein was initially appointed as a General Clerk on 15/07/1982 in
respondent No.1-Bank. Subsequently, he was promoted to the post of
Deputy Manager to the Assistant General Manager. On 31/08/2019 on
attaining the age superannuation he retired from the service. Prior to
his retirement when he was working as a Chief Manager Loan Tracking
Cell, Recovery Department, Head Office, Pune was served him with
memorandum of charge-sheet bearing No.AX-1/ST/DM/E-759/
839/2018-19/853 dated 10/12/2018. As per the allegation he has
committed misconduct and thereby under Regulation 8 of Bank of
Maharashtra Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations,
1976 proceedings was initiated against him. As per the charge-sheet
charge was levelled against him as follows :
(i) While sanctioning the Cash Credit facility under
LAP he has accepted third party properties of M/s. Seena
Sugar Manufacturing Company Ltd. As security for credit
facility of M/s. K.J. Engineering Pvt. Ltd. as primary security
which is not allowed under LAP scheme.
(ii) While amending the original sanction of Cash
Credit facility under LAP to CC General for M/s. K.J.
Engineering Pvt. Ltd., Mr. Jain failed to approach ZLCC
members and conveyed the amended sanction of credit
facility to Nanded Phata branch and Agri High Tech branch
vide mail dated 22.02.2013.
(iii) While amending the sanction from LAP to CC
General, he failed to assess the CC limit to ascertain the
actual requirement of working capital. In terms of bank's
lending policy guidelines the working capital assessment is
compulsory while granting working capital limit under CC
General.
(iv) Mr. Jain had conveyed the amended sanction of
CC General facility to Nanded Phata branch, however again
on 22.02.2013 he has given mail to Agri High Tech branch,
for executing hypothecation documents for Rs.500.00 lakhs
and releasing CC limit of Rs.300.00 lakhs which was
unwarranted.
(v) As per the mail from Mr. Jain, Agri High Tech
branch had opened the account at their end on 22.02.2013
and released Rs.299.00 lakh on 23.02.2013 through RTGS
favouring K.J. Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. a sister concern with
Union Bank of India which resulted in diversion of bank's
funds. The diversion took place mainly because Agri High
Tech branch was not aware about the account & they only
followed instructions sent by Mr. Jain on mail. Thus he
facilitated diversion of bank's funds.
(vi) He failed to ensure that the mortgage properties
in the name of M/s. Seena Sugar Manufacturing Company
Ltd. is transferred in the name of director of K.J. Engineering
Pvt. Ltd. before sanction of credit facility from LAP to CC
Gen, instead he has stipulated the same as condition in
sanction which was not complied subsequently.
12. After receipt of the said charge immediately he wrote to the
respondent No.1-Bank vide communication dated 18/12/2018 and
asked for the relevant documents as according to him the charge-sheet
was issued to him regarding the incident of 2013. He mentioned in the
letter that the events mentioned in the memorandum of charge-sheet
relates to the year 2013 which renders him unable to stage back his
memory and remember as to what transpired at the relevant time. It is
submitted on behalf of the petitioner that instead of supplying relevant
documents to him punishment order was served upon him. Thus, the
reasonable opportunity was not granted to him to defend himself. To
support his contention he relied upon the communication dated
18/12/2018 as well as the reply given by the respondent No.1-Bank to
his application under the R.T.I. Act. The reply given by the respondent
No.1-Bank on the application of the petitioner under the R.T.I. Act
shows that the letter dated 02/01/2019 and reminder dated
21/01/2019 no such record is available to show that said letters are
delivered to the petitioner. No such record is traceable and no such note
prepared for issuance of said communication. He submitted that the
reply of respondent No.1-Bank is sufficient to show that no such
documents are supplied to the petitioner. He further submitted that
though respondent No.1-Bank relied upon the extract of outward
register but it only shows that one letter was forwarded, it nowhere
shows that said letter and documents are delivered to the petitioner.
Thus, it is evident that the sufficient and reasonable opportunity was not
granted to the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner had preferred an
appeal before the Appellate Authority mentioning the ground that
without supplying the documents to him Disciplinary Authority passed
the punishment order. The Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal by
observing that despite providing the documents and sending reminder,
the petitioner had not submitted his statement of defence. Accordingly,
the note was placed before the Disciplinary Authority and General
Manager. They have examined the nature and gravity of the charges
levelled against the petitioner and imposed the punishment which was
proper and dismissed the appeal. The petitioner had also preferred
Review Application before the Reviewing Authority. The Reviewing
Authority had observed that the petitioner was given an opportunity to
submit his written statement of defence but he failed to submit the same
and, therefore, the Disciplinary Authority proceeded and passed the
order. It is evident from the order passed by the Reviewing Authority
that it has not assigned any reason on the basis of which it came to the
conclusion that no new submission was made by the petitioner. No
reason is assigned to indicate consideration and rejection of the
petitioner's stand in the review application. The Bank of Maharashtra
had approved the Bank of Maharashtra Officer Employees' (Discipline
and Appeal) Regulations, 1976. Regulation 8 describes the procedure
for imposing minor penalties which is reproduced hereunder for the
reference :
"Regulation 8 :
Procedure for imposing minor penalties.
(1) Where it is proposed to impose any of the minor
penalties specified in clauses (a) to (e) of regulation 4,
the officer employee concerned shall be informed in
writing of the imputations of lapses against him and
given an opportunity to submit his written statement of
defence within a specified period not exceeding 15 days
or such extended period as may be granted by the
Disciplinary Authority and the defence statement if any
submitted by officer employee shall be taken into
consideration by the disciplinary authority before passing
orders.
(2) Where, however, the Disciplinary Authority is
satisfied that an enquiry is necessary, it shall follow the
procedure for imposing a major penalty as laid down in
regulation 6.
(3) The record of the proceedings in such cases shall
includes -
i) a copy of the statement of imputation of lapses
furnished to the officer employee;
ii) the defence statement, if any of the officer
employee; and
iii) the orders of the disciplinary authority
together with the reasons thereof."
13. In view of the said procedure the officer employee concerned
shall be informed in writing of the imputations of lapses against him and
shall be given an opportunity to submit his written statement of defence.
The defence statement, if any, submitted by the officer employee shall
be taken into consideration by the disciplinary authority before passing
an orders. Here in the present case, it is the case of the petitioner that
no opportunity was given to him to submit his statement of defence.
The Reviewing Authority had not considered the said ground and
without assigning reason dismissed the Review Petition. The Reviewing
Authority ought to have considered the ground of lack of grant of
reasonable opportunity to the petitioner.
14. Shri Sudame, learned Counsel for the petitioner rightly relied
upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case Narinder Mohan
Arya (supra) wherein it is held that the Appellate Authority while
disposing of the appeal was required to apply his mind and an appellate
order if it is in agreement with that of the disciplinary authority may not
be a speaking order but the authority passing the same must show that
there had been proper application of mind on his part as regards the
compliance with the requirements of law and Divisional Forest Officer
Kothagudem and ors. (supra) wherein it is held that the revisional
authority being the highest authority is not required to give detailed
reasons but in the interests of justice, the delinquent officer is entitled to
know at least the mind of the appellate or revisional authority.
15. Here in the present case, consideration of this aspect by the
Reviewing Authority appears to be absent. The Reviewing Authority had
not assigned any reason while dismissing the review application and has
not considered whether the petitioner was deprived of sufficient
opportunity or not.
16. At the same time, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents
relied upon I.D.L. Chemicals Ltd. (supra). The facts of the cited case
shows that the delinquent was given a charge-sheet and his explanation
was called and taken into consideration, therefore, it is held by the
Hon'ble Apex Court that no fault can be found with the penalty of
stoppage of two increments imposed by the Bank upon the appellant.
He further placed his reliance on Syed Rahimuddin (supra) wherein the
fact shows that the petitioner had not made any grievance during the
enquiry but subsequently made a representation in that regard and,
therefore, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that it could not be said that the
delinquent had been really prejudiced by non-supply of the documents.
Here in the present case, after receipt of the notice immediately the
petitioner had made a communication on 18/12/2018 requesting to
provide him copies of documents on which the allegations were based,
therefore, the facts of the cited case and facts of the present case are not
similar. He further relied upon State Bank of India and ors. (supra)
wherein it is held that fair procedure does not mean giving of copies of
documents or list of witnesses along with charge-sheet though statement
of allegations has to accompany charge-sheet. The facts of the cited case
shows that the documents were forwarded to the delinquent officer
which was not accepted by him nor any list of defence documents was
submitted. Here in the present case, though the respondent No.1-Bank
of Maharashtra placed reliance on dispatch register to show service of
necessary documents but it was only showing that the documents were
forwarded. Nothing on record to show that the said documents were
actually handed over or received by the petitioner. Thus, the facts of the
cited case and the present case in hand, are not identical and not helpful
to the petitioner. On the same line, the petitioner relied upon Shri I.D.
Gupta (supra). The facts of the cited case and the present case are also
not identical. The respondents had also relied upon the Maharashtra
State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education (supra)
wherein it is held that strict rules of Evidence Act, and the standard of
proof envisaged therein do not apply to departmental proceedings or
domestic tribunal. It is open to the authorities to receive and place on
record all the necessary relevant, cogent and acceptable material facts
though not proved strictly in conformity with the Evidence Act. There is
no dispute regarding above well settled legal position. We are in
respectful agreement with the same. Here in the present case, grievance
of the petitioner is that as the relevant documents on which the
allegations were based were not given to him to enable him to submit
his reply as the allegations levelled against him regarding the past
incident of the year 2013. The respondents further relied upon State of
Gujarat (supra). The facts of the cited case and the present case are
altogether different as the issue involved in the said case was that
several misconducts committed by the delinquent officer came to the
notice by the authorities upon holding a disciplinary enquiry charges
held to be proved. Thereafter he filed an application before the Gujarat
Civil Services Tribunal while considering the matter before the Hon'ble
Apex Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court held that in absence of even a bare
denial, the charge was rightly have been held to be proved by the
Disciplinary Authority. Thus, the facts of the cited case are not identical
with the present case. The observation in the cited case is after
recording the relevant evidence and after giving proper opportunity to
the delinquent and, therefore, the Hon'ble Apex Court has not
entertained the petition. Lastly, respondents relied upon Himachal
Pradesh Road Transport Corporation and anr. (supra) wherein it is held
that the employee's own admission of misconduct and, therefore, the
enquiry in the above said circumstances held not necessary. Here in the
present case, after service of notice no opportunity was given to the
petitioner and said fact is not considered by the Reviewing Authority
thus, the cited case law is not helpful to the respondents.
17. Though Shri M.G. Bhangde, learned Senior Counsel for the
respondents relied upon I.D.L. Chemicals Ltd. (supra) wherein the
Hon'ble Apex Court held that the penalty of stoppage of two increments
simpliciter was imposed upon the appellant. He was given a charge-
sheet and his explanation was called for. This observation of the
Hon'ble Apex Court after considering the facts of the concerned case in
the decision in case which was before the Hon'ble Apex Court the fact
shows that after considering the reply the punishment was imposed.
Therefore, the cited case law is not helpful to the respondents.
18. In the above facts and circumstances, the petitioner has made
out a case that no reasonable opportunity was granted to him and the
principles of natural justice was not complied. In view of that matter,
the grievance of the petitioner requires reconsideration by the Reviewing
Committee by considering it on the basis of grounds mentioned in the
Review Application. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the directions
to the Review Committee are required to consider the Review
Application of the petitioner afresh by giving him sufficient opportunity.
In the result, the writ petition deserves to be allowed.
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed. The order passed by
the Reviewing Authority on 27/09/2019 is set aside.
(ii) The Reviewing Authority i.e. the Managing
Director and Chief Executive Officer of respondent No.1-
Bank are directed to consider the Review Application of the
petitioner afresh by giving him reasonable opportunity. The
review application shall be considered on its own merits
without being influenced by any observation in this
judgment.
19. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms. There will be
no order as to costs.
(URMILA JOSHI-PHALKE, J.) (A.S. CHANDURKAR, J.)
*Divya
Signed By:DIVYA SONU BALDWA
Personal Assistant
Signing Date:30.09.2022 15:08
