2006 (4) TMI 492 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether in this case there has been a gross violation of principles of natural justice? Held that - The pattern of charges against the Appellant, categorically point out to the fact that the Appellant had been misbehaving with the Regional Managers and other officers, as well as the customers not only while he was posted in different branches.The validity of the disciplinary proceeding and/or justifiability thereof on the ground of delay or otherwise had never been raised by the Appellant before any forum. It was not his case either before the Appellate Authority or before the High Court that by reason of any delay in initiating the disciplinary proceeding he had been prejudiced in any manner whatsoever. It may be true that delay itself may be a ground for arriving at a finding that enquiry proceeding was vitiated in the event it is shown that by reason thereof the delinquent officer has been prejudiced, but no such case was made out. It is not a fit case where this Court should exercise its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the penalty of removal from service.
2. Violation of principles of natural justice.
3. Delay in initiating disciplinary proceedings.
4. Condonation of misconduct.
5. Proportionality of the punishment imposed.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Penalty of Removal from Service:
The Appellant was removed from service by the Disciplinary Authority without being furnished a copy of the inquiry report. The Appellant argued that this denied him an opportunity to present his case against the findings of the Inquiry Officer. The Disciplinary Authority also differed with the Inquiry Officer's findings on charge No.2 without providing reasons or a show cause notice to the Appellant. The Appellate Authority upheld the removal, emphasizing the need for discipline and decency in the bank.

2. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice:
The Appellant contended that the removal violated principles of natural justice because he was not given a copy of the inquiry report and was not heard by the Disciplinary Authority regarding the differing findings on charge No.2. The court noted that the Disciplinary Authority should have issued a show cause notice to the Appellant when differing from the Inquiry Officer's findings. The court cited the case of Punjab National Bank & Ors. vs. Kunj Behari Mishra, emphasizing the necessity of adhering to principles of natural justice.

3. Delay in Initiating Disciplinary Proceedings:
The Appellant argued that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated after an undue delay of about three years, which should vitiate the proceedings. However, the court found that the Appellant did not raise this issue before any forum and actively participated in the proceedings. The court cited State of M.P. vs. Bani Singh & Anr. and State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Chaman Lal Goyal, indicating that delay alone does not vitiate proceedings unless it causes prejudice to the delinquent officer.

4. Condonation of Misconduct:
The Appellant argued that the bank's inaction for a long time amounted to condonation of his misconduct. The court rejected this argument, stating that the doctrine of condonation of misconduct, evolved under common law, does not apply to statutory authorities like the Respondent-Bank. The court cited State of M.P. & Ors. vs. R.N. Mishra & Anr., emphasizing that promotion during pending inquiries does not necessarily imply condonation of misconduct.

5. Proportionality of the Punishment Imposed:
The Appellant contended that the punishment of removal from service was disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct. The court noted that the charges against the Appellant were severe and involved repeated misconduct, including abusive language and threats. The court cited Orissa Cement Limited vs. Adikanda Sahu and Mahindra and Mahendra Ltd. vs. N.N. Narawade, stating that verbal abuse can justify dismissal. The court also referenced Chairman & M.D., Bharat Pet. Corpn. Ltd. & Ors. vs. T.K. Raju, indicating that interference with the quantum of punishment should be limited and only in exceptional cases.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the removal from service. The court found that the principles of natural justice were violated regarding charge No.2 but deemed the charges severable and the remaining charges sufficient to justify the punishment. The court emphasized the need for maintaining discipline and decency in the bank and found no grounds to interfere with the quantum of punishment.

← Previous Next →