Delhi High Court
N M Jain vs Vijaya Bank And Ors. on 16 November, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: November 16, 2017
+ W.P.(C) 7491/2017 & C.M. 30851/2017
N M JAIN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ashok Bhalla, Advocate
Versus
VIJAYA BANK AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Jagat Arora & Mr. Rajat
Arora, Advocates
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
JUDGMENT
ORAL
1. Consequent upon a departmental inquiry, punishment of Dismissal
from Service was inflicted upon petitioner, which was challenged by him.
In the first round of litigation, petitioner had succeeded in the writ
petition filed by him. The operative portion of order of 27th February,
2015 (Annexure P-19) passed in the writ petition, reads as under:-
"18. In view of above discussion and in view law laid
down in case of J. Ahmed (supra), T.V. Choudahry (supra),
Tata Engineering & Locomotive Col. Ltd. (supra), Kailash
Nath Gupta (supra), Raj Pal Singh (supra), Rajender Yadav
(supra) and Manju Khanna (supra) this Court is of the view
that the petitioner has not committed any major misconduct
rather the branch of the bank followed the procedure with
regard to handling of public issues of three companies and that
the punishment of dismissal of the petitioner from service of the
bank is not appropriate. The dismissal order dated 12.10.1999
as well as order dated 22.03.2000 passed by the appellate
authority are quashed.
19. As dismissal order dated 12.10.1999 and order dated
22.03.2000 passed by the appellate authority have been
quashed, the petitioner would be entitled for consequential
benefits thereof.
20. However, the bank management would be at the liberty
to pass the fresh order on the premises of inquiry report dated
30.06.1999 (Annexure P-5) after giving an opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner.
21. Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed.
No order as to costs."
2. Respondent-bank had preferred Letters Patent Appeal, which was
dismissed by the Division Bench vide order of 23st March, 2016
(Annexure P-20) by holding as under:-
"We find no reason to interfere with this order. The
bank/ appellant, is however, at liberty to also make
consequential orders as to the manner in which the period
between 12.10.1999 and the date on which the respondent
superannuated is to be treated in accordance with the service
and pension rules."
3. Since the respondent-Bank was given liberty to pass a fresh order
on the basis of Inquiry Report against petitioner, therefore, respondent-
Bank had given a Notice on 12th November, 2016 (Annexure P-22) to
petitioner for personal hearing. In response to the said Notice of 12 th
November, 2016 (Annexure P-22), petitioner had submitted a Reply on
14th December, 2016 (Annexure P-23), wherein Regulations 12 (4) & 12
(5) of Discipline & Appeal Regulations and Regulation 46 of Pension
Regulations, were quoted and provisional pension was sought from 1 st
January, 2003 in terms of Regulation 46 of PNB Employees' Pension
Regulations. It is a matter of record that petitioner did not appear for
personal hearing despite opportunity given because the provisional
pension was not released to him. However, respondent-Bank vide order
of 6th January, 2017 (Annexure P-26) has imposed penalty of "Removal
from Service" upon petitioner.
4. Impugned order of 6th January, 2017 (Annexure P-26) is assailed in
this petition by learned counsel for petitioner while drawing the attention
of this Court to order of 27th February, 2015 (Annexure P-19) to point out
that the discretion with the respondent-Bank was to impose a minor
penalty, as the misconduct of petitioner was found not to be major one.
Petitioner's counsel submits that there is utter non-application of mind by
the authority passing the impugned order, as penalty of "Removal from
Service" has been imposed, which is for major misconduct. Attention of
this Court is drawn to Minor Penalties (e) of Vijaya Bank Officer
Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1981 to show that only
minor penalties can be inflicted for minor misconduct. So, it is submitted
by petitioner's counsel that impugned order 12th November, 2016
(Annexure P-22) deserves to be set aside and penalty of "Removal from
Service" be substituted with a minor penalty with consequential benefits.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent-Bank, supports
the impugned order and submits that gravity of misconduct committed by
petitioner is dwelled upon in detail in the impugned order, which justifies
the imposition of penalty of "Removal from Service". So, it is submitted
by respondents' counsel that this petition deserves dismissal.
6. Upon hearing and on perusal of the material on record, I find that
the impugned order of 12th November, 2016 (Annexure P-22) imposing
penalty of Dismissal from Service runs counter to the decision of this
Court rendered on 27th February, 2015 (Annexure P-19). Since the
misconduct committed by petitioner has been found to be minor one in
the order of 27th February, 2015 (Annexure P-19) passed in the writ
petition as well as order of 23st March, 2016 (Annexure P-20) in the
Letters Patent Appeal, which have attained finality, therefore, it was not
open to respondent-Bank to have imposed penalty for major misconduct.
Impugned order so far as it inflicts penalty of "Removal from Service" is
hereby set aside and penalty imposed is substituted with minor penalty of
reduction to a lower stage in the time scale of pay for a period not
exceeding three years without cumulative effect, which shall not
adversely affect petitioner's pension in terms of Clause (e) of Minor
Penalties of Vijaya Bank Officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal)
Regulations, 1981. Harshest of Minor Penalty is inflicted upon petitioner
in the facts and circumstances of this case. As far as impugned order qua
grant of salary and allowances for the period 12 th October, 1999 till 30th
November, 2002 is concerned, it is not being interfered with. Petitioner
shall be entitled to consequential benefits upon infliction of the afore-
noted substituted penalty. Let compliance be made within twelve weeks,
failing which the arrears payable to petitioner shall carry interest @6%
p.a.
7. With aforesaid directions, this petition and application are disposed
of.
SUNIL GAUR
(JUDGE)
NOVEMBER 16, 2017
r
