Rekha Kaushal vs Punjab National Bank And Ors
2019 Latest Caselaw 1135 Del

$~
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                      Reserved on:        31.01.2019
                                      Pronounced on:      20.02.2019

+      W.P.(C) 8190/2017
       REKHA KAUSHAL                                      ..... Petitioner
                          Through     Mr.Rachit Batra, Adv. with
                                      Mr.Nimish Chandra & Mr.Sharad
                                      Arya, Advs.

                          versus

       PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ORS          ..... Respondents
                    Through Adv.(appearance not given)

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

                                   JUDGMENT

1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks direction to set aside

order dated 04.11.2016 passed by reviewing authority and petitioner be

absolve of all the charges which have been levelled against her vide

chargesheet dated 16.12.2013 and supplementary chargesheet dated

09.07.2014. She further seeks direction thereby directing the respondents to

promote her to Senior Management Grade Scale-IV, with effect from the

date from which her immediate junior has been promoted in the selection

process held in the year 2014 in which the petitioner was also interviewed,

along with arrears of pay, after fixation of pay as Chief Manager in Senior

Management Grade Scale-IV w.e.f. 2014. She also seeks direction directing

the respondents to refund her pay deducted due to punishment vide orders

dated 17.09.2015 of the disciplinary authority and further amended by

orders dated 04.11.2016 of review authority and direct the respondents to

remove petitioner's name from the list of doubtful integrity officers (LODI).

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner joined the respondent

bank on 29.07.1986 as clerk-cum-cashier and is presently holding the post of

Senior Manager in Middle Management Grade Scale-III w.e.f. 01.09.2010.

At the time of filing of the petition, she was posted at Branch Office, Nehru

Place, New Delhi, as second person i.e. next to the incumbent incharge of

the Senior Management Grade of Scale-IV w.e.f.16.11.2015. The branch

office, Moti Bagh, of respondent Bank was under the command of petitioner

from October 2010 to 2015. Under her command, the respondent bank

branch flourished at record speed and was also awarded as one of the top

branches of bank all over. The said branch figured in top 10% overall

performing branches of respondent for the first time ever under the

command of petitioner in year 2011. The same was duly recognized by

respondent vide circular No.MASD/5/2011 dated 16.11.2007. The branch

was recognized and rewarded as number one branch in car loan segment for

FY 2011-12 vide RAD circular no.28/2012. Moreover, again for FY 2012-

13 branch of petitioner was awarded as number one in same segment.

3. Further case of the petitioner is that in the month of February, 2013,

being in-charge of Moti Nagar Branch, the petitioner detected a planned

loan fraud played upon upon the bank and accordingly lodged police

complaint with the concerned police station and also informed her seniors

about the same. Consequently, several persons were arrested and case

against them is pending in Saket Court, New Delhi. The efforts of the

petitioner were lauded by some of her seniors but orally. However, instead

of lauding her efforts, after elapsing of 10 months of incident, the petitioner

was served with a chargesheet dated 16.12.2013 of major vigilance enquiry.

The petitioner was shocked to receive the chargesheet but replied to same

but an enquiry was started. It was unfair on the part of the respondent bank

to appoint an officer subordinate to the petitioner as presenting officer in

enquiry against the petitioner. On receiving the reply of petitioner and

realizing that charges would not be sufficient to victimise and punish her, a

supplementary chargesheet dated 09.07.2014 was served upon her during

ongoing enquiry much in contravention of regulations of bank. Moreover,

no opportunity to file reply to the same was afforded to the petitioner in

violation of regulations governing enquiry and principles of natural justice.

Moreover, charges of supplementary chargesheet were made part of the

ongoing enquiry. Finally, the petitioner was ordered a penalty of two

increments lower for two years in the time scale of pay. The same was

challenged in appeal but appeal was dismissed. Thereafter the petitioner

preferred a review petition but she was not absolved of charges and only

penalty was reduced to one increment lower for one year in the time scale of

pay. Moreover, petitioner's name was not removed from list of doubtful

integrity officers and hence being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the

present writ petition.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in

chargesheet dated 16.12.2013, the Bank charged the petitioner with

misconduct that she failed to ensure and protect the interest of the bank and

failed to discharge her duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and

diligence in terms of regulation (3)(1) read with regulation 24 of PNB

Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1977. This charge of misconduct

was specific to two car loans (1. Ramesh Chander Sachdeva, Rohit

Sachdeva; 2. Surinder Sharma) sanctioned by the petitioner during the

course of her duty. These car loans were the same cases which the petitioner

had detected and reported to police and circle head. However, the petitioner

replied to the said charges. In her reply, she explained the factual and

practical staff constraints that the branch was facing from October 2012 for

next many months. The issue was discussed with seniors for deputing staff

but of no avail. The bank appointed Mr.G.L. Manchanda as enquiry officer

(Ex.AGM retired) and Mr.R.K. Arora as presenting officer to present the

case on behalf of the bank. Mr.R.K. Arora surprisingly refused to become

presenting officer and Mr.Umesh Bhardwaj was appointed as presenting

officer in the case who has been a junior officer under the petitioner during

her posting as Branch Manager, Moti Bagh to whom the petitioner had been

scolded up several times due to his inefficient working and thus had a

vindictive attitude towards the petitioner. During the pendency of the

enquiry proceedings, the enquiry officer and presenting officer realized that

the petitioner was raising valid defences and charges may not be sufficient

to hold her guilt of misconduct, the bank served a supplementary

chargesheet dated 09.07.2014, upon the petitioner with no opportunity to

reply to the same in utter disregard to principal of natural justice and made

the supplementary chargesheet a subject matter of the previous ongoing

enquiry.

5. Learned counsel submitted that there is no provision in PNB Officer

Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1977 to serve a supplementary

chargesheet in an ongoing inquiry. The regulations are very clear and state

that whether it is proposed to hold an enquiry, the disciplinary authority

shall frame definite and distinct charges on the basis of allegations against

the officer.

6. Learned counsel further states that being aggrieved by the order dated

17.09.2015, the petitioner appealed before the Appellate Authority and the

same was dismissed vide order dated 29.01.2016. In the meanwhile, the

final order dated 29.12.2015 was pronounced by disciplinary authority on

second chargesheet dated 07.09.2015 and a penalty of one increment lower

in the time scale of pay for one year was ordered. However, the petitioner

challenged the said order and same was modified by the appellate authority

to censure only. Being aggrieved by the order of the disciplinary authority

dated 17.09.2015 and appellate authority order dated 29.01.2016, the

petitioner preferred a review petition to the Chairman and CEO of the bank

but the said two orders were not set aside and only penalty was reduced to

one increment down in the time scale of pay for one year in place of two

years as originally ordered. In addition, the petitioner has also been placed

under list of doubtful integrity officers which means that she would not be

entitled to hold any sensitive and responsible post in the bank.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that as per clause

2.1.3 of the Staff Accountability Policy (Inspection & Audit Division

Circular No.24/2013 dated 29.10.2013, no accountability shall be examined

once irregularity is timely rectified. If it is subsequently found that the

irregularities pointed out in the IR were got closed/dropped with submission

of incorrect confirmation without actual rectification, such cases will be

treated seriously and will warrant staff accountability.

8. In the present case, the petitioner herself pointed out the irregularities

and ambiguities, therefore, she could not be held liable for such charges

framed against the petitioner.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

respondents submits that the allegations contained in the supplementary

chargesheet related to many other car loans (other than the car loans in

respect of which chargesheet dated 16.12.2013 was served) and the various

other loan accounts sanctioned by the petitioner without adhering to

eligibility criteria and failing to ensure proper scrutiny of past conduct of

account of borrower/guarantors. The departmental enquiry was conducted

in terms of PNB Officer's Employee (Conduct) Regulation, 1977. After

completion of the departmental enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted report

dated 28.05.2015 wherein he found the allegations made in the chargesheet

dated 16.12.2013 and supplementary chargesheet dated 09.07.2014 as

proved. Copy of the enquiry report was made available to the petitioner and

the petitioner made her submissions on 29.07.2015 to the findings of

Enquiry Officer. The Disciplinary Authority by order dated 17.09.2015

imposed major punishment of reduction by two stages in the time scale of

pay for a period of 02 years with further direction that she will not earn

increment of pay during the period of such reduction and on expiry of such

period the reduction will have the effect of postponing the future increments

of her pay. The Appellate Authority has rejected the appeal of the petitioner

vide order dated 29.01.2016. However, the Reviewing Authority vide order

dated 04.11.2016 modified the punishment to "reduction by one lower stage

in the time scale of pay for a period of 01 year with further direction that

she will earn increment of pay during the period of such reduction and on

expiry of such period the reduction will have the effect of postponing the

future increments of her pay". Thus, the petition deserves to be dismissed.

10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

11. The law has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the

delinquent office cannot seek re-appreciation of oral and documentary

evidence led during the course of departmental enquiry. In case of State

Bank of India vs. Ram Lal Bhaskar & Anr.: (2011) 10 SCC 249 held that

in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court cannot

sit as an appellate authority over the findings of the disciplinary authority

and so long as the findings of the disciplinary authority are supported by

some evidence. The High Court shall not re-appreciate the evidence and

come to a different and independent finding on the evidence.

12. In case of State of U.P. & Anr. vs. Manmohan Nath Sinha & Anr.:

(2009) 8 SCC 310 whereby it is held that the Court does not sit in judgment

on merits of the decision. It is not open to the High Court to re-appreciate

and reappraise the evidence led before the inquiry officer and examine the

findings recorded by the inquiry officer as a court of appeal and reach its

own conclusion.

13. As argued by the counsel for the respondents that the petitioner had

not made any allegation of personal enmity or malafide against any official

during the course of departmental enquiry. However, she has made

allegation in the petition for the first time against the presenting officer.

However, the said presenting officer has not been arrayed as a party to the

petition by name. Therefore, according to the well settled law, such

allegations are only liable to be ignored.

14. It is not in dispute that the petitioner participated in the departmental

enquiry and there is no violation of principles of natural justice. If the

petitioner was aggrieved by the second chargesheet, she would have taken

the shelter of the court at that very point of time. Since she accepted and

participated in the departmental proceedings at this stage the petitioner

cannot take the objection that the supplementary chargesheet was filed

without due process of law. Moreover, the charges against the petitioner

have been proved, accordingly, the disciplinary authority has passed the

order which was confirmed by the appeal, however, the revisional authority

reduced the punishment as mentioned above. This court cannot re-appreciate

the evidence led during the departmental enquiry. Moreover, during enquiry

there was no malafide against any of the officers and not pointed out any of

the procedural lapses before filing the present petition.

15. Admittedly, after the charges which have been finally concluded,

there is no other fresh misconduct on the part of the petitioner, therefore, I

find no justification to continue the name of the petitioner under the list of

doubtful integrity officers. Accordingly, I hereby set aside the impugned

order to that extent. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to delete the

name of the petitioner from the list of doubtful integrity officers within two

weeks from the receipt of this order. After removal the entry in the doubtful

integrity, if the petitioner is otherwise eligible to be considered for further

promotion, there shall be no embargo for that.

16. I hereby made it clear that if after serving the punishment awarded to

the petitioner, the petitioner is entitled for further promotion, the

respondents shall not take the shelter of the earlier punishment if the

petitioner is otherwise eligible.

17. In view of the above, the petition is partly allowed.

(SURESH KUMAR KAIT) JUDGE FEBRUARY 20, 2019 ab