Delhi High Court
Biswasri Mukherjee vs Punjab And Sind Bank on 25 March, 2021
$~27
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ LPA 72/2021 & C.M. No. 6140/2021(for stay) & C.M. No.
7414/2021 (for urgent hearing)
BISWASRI MUKHERJEE
..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Dinesh Kumar Sabharwal, Ms.
Heena Ahluwalia and Mr. Sameer
Bhatnagar, Advocates.
Versus
PUNJAB AND SIND BANK
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Gautam, Mr.
Anant Gautam, Mr. Nipun Sharma
and Mr. Madhur Tewatia, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL
ORDER
% 25.03.2021
1. The intra-court appeal impugns the judgment dated 3rd February, 2021
of dismissal of W.P.(C) 5292/2020.
2. W.P.(C) 5292/2020 was preferred by the appellant, a Clerk/Cashier
since the year 2013 in the respondent Punjab and Sind Bank, against the
rejection of her request to allow her to engage an advocate in the
disciplinary proceedings initiated against her in terms of the charge sheet
dated 24th April, 2020.
3. The Single Judge, in a judgment running into as many as 28 pages,
LPA 72/2021 page 1 of 4
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ASHWANI
Signing Date:06.04.2021
12:24:17
has given plethora of reasons why the appellant is not entitled to
representation through an advocate in the disciplinary proceedings initiated
against her.
4. We have however enquired from the counsel for the respondent bank,
whether an opportunity of availing of a defence assistant in the disciplinary
proceedings had been given to the appellant.
5. The counsel for the respondent bank states that though in accordance
with the bilateral agreement between the respondent bank and its Union, the
appellant has a right of representation through the Union but the respondent
bank by way of abundant caution, had permitted the appellant to be
represented in the disciplinary proceedings by any co-worker whatsoever,
but the appellant is insisting upon representation through an advocate.
6. On further enquiry of the status of the disciplinary proceedings,
attention is invited to page 408 of the file, being a letter dated 17th February,
2021 of the Inquiry Officer to the appellant and the counsel for the
respondent bank states that on the failure of the appellant to appear in the
disciplinary proceedings, the appellant has been proceeded against ex-parte
but the Inquiry Report has not been submitted as yet. It is however informed
that in response to the aforesaid letter dated 17th February 2021, the
appellant has filed written submissions before the inquiry officer.
7. De hors the reasoning given by the Single Judge for denial of right of
representation through advocate to the appellant, we have enquired from the
counsel for the appellant, how such petitions, during the pendency of
disciplinary proceedings, are maintainable. Attention of the counsel for the
LPA 72/2021 page 2 of 4
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ASHWANI
Signing Date:06.04.2021
12:24:17
appellant has been drawn to D.P Maheshwari Vs. Delhi Administration
(1983) 4 SCC 293; deprecating the practice of taking preliminary
pleas/objections in disciplinary proceedings and inviting decision thereon
and carrying the matter to the High Courts under Article 226 of Constitution
of India and at times even till the Supreme Court and all of which delays
decision of the real dispute for years, at times for over a decade and holding
that the high courts, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, before
entertaining such challenge, should ask themselves whether such threshold
part-adjudication is really necessary and whether it will not lead to woeful
consequence. In State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Brahm Datt Sharma (1987) 2
SCC 179, dealing with a challenge at show cause notice stage, it was held
that interference by the Court before a final decision is taken in disciplinary
proceedings, is premature. Reference may also be made to Special Director
Vs. Mohd. Ghulam Ghouse (2004) 3 SCC 440 and Union of India Vs.
Kunisetty Satyanarayana (2006) 12 SCC 28. The counsel for the
respondent, after the hearing, has forwarded to us a copy of Chanan Singh
Vs. Registrar, Co-op. Societies, Punjab (1976) 3 SCC 361, holding that till
a punitive action is taken against an employee, writ petition is premature in
as much as it is not known, what the outcome of disciplinary proceeding will
be and which even if against the employee, has a remedy of departmental
appeal thereagainst, and of Air India Ltd. Vs. M. Yogeshwar Raj (2000) 5
SCC 467, reiterating the same.
8. The counsel for the appellant, avoiding our query, has contended that
considering the nature of the charges against the appellant, she cannot
LPA 72/2021 page 3 of 4
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ASHWANI
Signing Date:06.04.2021
12:24:17
defend herself and right of representation through advocate is necessary. It is
argued that though the appellant, since 2013 is working as a Clerk/Cashier
on being promoted, but was originally inducted into the bank on
compassionate grounds, as a Peon.
9. With respect to the query, why the appellant has not taken the
assistance of a Union or a co-worker as is informed to have been offered to
her, it is stated that the Union refused to help her and the appellant did not
approach any co-worker.
10. The settled principle being, that the challenges to disciplinary
proceedings at interim stage cannot be entertained, we are not inclined to
keep this appeal pending and dismiss the appeal with liberty to the appellant
to raise all pleas, including the pleas that have been taken in this appeal, in
case the decision in the disciplinary proceedings is against the appellant, in
appropriate proceedings.
11. We may however record that the counsel for the respondent bank has
informed that the charge against the appellant is of defalcation of Rs. 75 lacs
of the customers of the respondent bank and though appellant was asked to
furnish information with respect to unexplained entries in the accounts of
herself and her son, but has not furnished any such information.
12. There is no merit in the appeal.
Dismissed.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
AMIT BANSAL, J.
MARCH 25, 2021/sr
LPA 72/2021 page 4 of 4
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:ASHWANI
Signing Date:06.04.2021
12:24:17
