Delhi High Court
Hari Om Sharma vs Bank Of Baroda And Ors on 3 November, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Order: November 03, 2017
+ W.P.(C) 9696/2017 & CM No.39491-92/2017
HARI OM SHARMA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Ashok Bhalla, Advocate
versus
BANK OF BARODA AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Mr.Arun Aggarwal, Advocate for R-1 to
R-3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
ORDER
(ORAL)
1. In a departmental enquiry, petitioner had been inflicted with
punishment of compulsory retirement by the Disciplinary Authority vide
order of 3.5.2017 (Annexure P-20) which was challenged by the
petitioner by way of an appeal (Annexure P-21).
2. The grievance of petitioner herein is that without being heard in
appeal, the show cause notice on 28.09.2017 (Annexure P-22) has been
received by him for enhancement of penalty from compulsory retirement
to dismissal from service. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that
petitioner's appeal stands impliedly dismissed without there being any
finding and without petitioner being heard. It is pointed out by
petitioner's counsel that despite there being a specific request in the
appeal (Annexure P-21) seeking an opportunity of personal hearing,
petitioner has not been heard and this is contrary to the principles of
natural justice.
3. Upon hearing and on perusal of the impugned show cause notice, I
find that it is not evident therefrom that the Appellate Authority had come
to a conclusion that there is no requirement of personal hearing and no
reason is forthcoming as to why personal hearing was not afforded to
petitioner. To say the least, the Appellate Authority is required to apply
its mind to the facts of the case and give a proper reasoning to come to a
conclusion as to whether the finding of petitioner being guilty, is justified
or not and then only the question of proportionality of punishment is to be
considered. In the impugned show cause notice, the grounds taken in the
appeal have not been dealt with. Moreover, the opinion of the Appellate
Authority is quite categoric in the impugned show cause notice that the
penalty needs to be enhanced and that too without considering the stand
of petitioner.
4. At the appellate stage, the Appellate Authority has to first return a
finding by giving adequate reasons as to whether the finding of
petitioner's guilt is justified or not and thereafter only a tentative opinion
is to be expressed regarding enhancement of punishment.
5. In view of the aforesaid, the impugned show cause notice is set
aside with a direction to the Appellate Authority to first return a categoric
finding on the petitioner's appeal while dealing with the pleas raised
therein and by passing a speaking order and thereafter only call upon the
petitioner, if a case for enhancement of punishment is made out. It is
made clear that this Court has not commented upon the aspect of
enhancement of punishment and it is left open to the Appellate Authority
to make up its mind after forming an opinion on merits of the appeal.
6. This order shall not preclude the Appellate Authority from giving a
notice for enhancement of punishment if it comes to a conclusion that
such a course is to be adopted.
7. With aforesaid directions, this petition and the accompanying
applications are disposed of.
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
NOVEMBER 03, 2017
mamta
