Delhi High Court
Shri J.R. Gupta vs Punjab & Sind Bank And Ors. on 3 July, 2002
Author: V Jain
Bench: V Jain
JUDGMENT
Vijender Jain, J.
1. This writ petition has been filed by the
petitioner aggrieved by the order of the respondent dated
12.7.93 vide which the petitioner was awarded major
penalty of reducing him to initial stage in time scale of
MMGS-II.
2. Mr. R. Venkata Ramani learned counsel for the
petitioner has contended that show cause notice was
issued to the petitioner on 3.8.90 for making some
contradictory statement before the enquiry authority.
The petitioner submitted his reply and on 25.1.91, Dy.
General Manager(P) expressed his displeasure and
cautioned the petitioner on the aforesaid misconduct.
3. It was contended that on 11.11.91, the petitioner
received a letter from the Regional Manager along with
letter dated 9.10.91 inter alia, stating that the
Executive Director had reviewed the order dated 25.1.91
and article of charge and statement of allegations were
issued against the petitioner.
4. It was contended by the counsel for the
petitioner that the Executive Director has no power to
review the order of Dy. General Manager(Personnel) dated
8.1.91, as per the regulations of the respondent bank as
Executive Director is not the reviewing authority and
even otherwise he could review the same within a period
of six months of the final order.
5. Next limb of the arguments advanced by the
counsel for the petitioner was that there were four other
officers including Kartar Singh Waraich, who were all
proved guilty of the same charge for having made
contradictory statement but said Mr. Kartar Singh
Waraich was exonerated vide order dated 10.6.93 passed by
Sh. K.S. Bains, Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the
respondent bank.
6. It was further contended by counsel for the
petitioner that the reviewing authority ought to have
issued show cause notice to the petitioner if reviewing
authority had come at a different finding than that of
the disciplinary authority.
7. Counsel for the petitioner contends that on the
aforesaid basis, the order of reviewing authority dated
13.3.91 is illegal in view of the Regulation 18 of the
Punjab and Sind Bank Officer Employees (Discipline &
Appeal) Regulations, 1981 and therefore same was liable
to be quashed.
8. Counsel for the petitioner further contends that
the order of the review passed by the Executive Director
be quashed and the petitioner is entitled to get the
original pay when the final order dated 12th July 1993
was passed by the Dy. General Manager(Personnel).
9. On the other hand counsel for the respondent has
contended that the reliance placed by the petitioner on
the regulations with regard to the period of six months
is misconceived as the record of the case has to be
called for within six months from the date of final
order. It was contended that record of the case was
called within a period of six months. It is contended by
the counsel for the respondent that the order was
reviewed within a period of six months as the order of
the Executive Director was dated 11.3.91. Counsel for
the respondent further controverter the stand of the
petitioner that four other officers were exonerated
except the petitioner and stated that same is not correct
as other officers including the petitioner were given
punishment except one Kartar Singh Waraich who was
exonerated in view of his past record and various other
duties.
10. I have given my careful consideration to the
arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties. The
order passed on 11.3.91 has taken into account:
"From the perusal of the file the
reply given by all the employees were on
the same line".
11.
As a matter of fact the Executive Director has
recorded that formal charge sheets be issued against them
then why Kartar Singh Waraich was left out. There is a
note at page No.52 of the paper books emanating from
Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Kartar Singh Bains which
makes interesting reading. The highest officer of the
respondent bank has taken into consideration the
following facts:-
"First the review undertaken by the ED
under Section 18 of PSB Officers
(Discipline & Appeal) Regulations is
assumed to be based on the 'final order'.
12. A 'final order' is supposed to be issued
only when disciplinary proceedings have
concluded. In this case the disciplinary
authority chose to 'caution' the officer
on the basis of his reply dated 19.11.90
to his show cause notice dated 3.8.90.
13.
Thirdly, the enquiry authority on page
10 of his report has clearly mentioned
that he accepts that CSO's submission that
the letter dated 13.7.84 was written under
pressure, coercion or inducement, which
plea the CSO has taken.
14. It cannot be ruled out that the
officer did give contradictory statement.
15. It is a serious matter that in his
statement he blamed a senior officer. It
cannot be ruled out that this charge
against him may be found correct.
16. However, at the same time, the procedural
and factual defects pointed out above do
weaken our case. In the ultimate analysis
proceedings may be not sustainable in a
court of law.
17. This order will not be treated as a
precedent in other similar cases.
OB
18. One fail to understand that when all the
aforesaid factors having been found against the said
Kartar Singh Waraich, his case was akin and similar to
other persons and same charges were labelled against him
as were labelled against other four persons and simply
because he met Chairman-cum-Managing Director on his tour
to Bhatinda, the Chairman-cum-Managing Director ordered
that Kartar Singh Waraich has suffered tension on account
of enquiry the disciplinary proceedings should be stayed
against him at whatever stage they were and he stood
exonerated of the charges. This kind of order passed in
favor of one person who was similarly situated with
other four persons offends Article 14 of the Constitution
of India. If the Chairman-cum-managing Director has
decided for the reasons bast known to him to exonerate
Kartar Singh Wariach who was implicated of the same
charges as other four persons then continuing the
proceedings against the four other officers amounted to
discrimination per se.
19. After having held that the review undertaken by
the Executive Director is assumed to be based on final
order and a final order was supposed to be issued only
when disciplinary proceedings were concluded and the
disciplinary authority having given caution to the
officer but there was no final order and conscious of the
fact that the procedural and factual defects weaken the
case of the department and, therefore, ultimate analysis
proceedings may not be sustainable in a court of law
exonerating Kartar Singh Waraich and leaving other
similarly situated persons including the petitioner is
arbitrary and colourable exercise of the powers vested
with the Chairman-cum-managing Director of the respondent
bank.
20. Therefore, I quash the order dated 11.3.91 by
issuing a writ of certiorari and further issue a writ of
mandamus to give the same pay scale to the petitioner as
he was entitled to from 12.7.93.
21. Rule is made absolute.
