Telangana High Court
B.Shankarappa vs The General Manager Syndicate Bank on 24 January, 2022
Author: P. Madhavi Devi
Bench: P. Madhavi Devi
THE HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI
WRIT PETITION NO.11696 OF 2003
ORDER
This is a Writ Petition filed by the petitioner seeking a Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari to call for the records pertaining to the final orders passed by the 2nd respondent vide his proceedings No.PRS/DGM/Hyderabad/ 2000/28 dt.01.03.2000 which was confirmed by the 1st respondent vide his proceedings No.108/PD:IRD (W)/DA-7 dt.22.07.2000 in a mechanical manner as an empty formality and to quash the same as illegal, irregular, arbitrary and consequently to reinstate the petitioner into service of the bank with all consequential benefits from the date of his compulsory retirement and to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
2. Brief facts of the case according to the petitioner are that the petitioner was appointed as an Attender of the respondent bank on 24.05.1985. Since the year 1991, the petitioner was constrained to take leave from time to time to take care of his mother who was suffering from cancer and whenever he was going on leave or was unable to attend the office, he used to intimate the concerned officials about his absence and while reporting to duty, he would submit leave W.P.No.11696 of 2003 2 letter and also medical certificate whenever he was sick. For some periods of unauthorised absence, he was also awarded minor punishments.
3. During the period between 16.12.1998 and 16.04.1999, the petitioner remained unauthorisedly absent for 110 days. Therefore, a charge sheet was given to the petitioner stating that he was in the habit of remaining unauthorisedly absent and that from 1995 to 1998 he was unauthorisedly absent for four times and minor punishments were imposed and that he remained absent for 110 days between 16.10.1998 and 16.04.1999 and therefore the petitioner was directed to submit his defence within 15 days of receipt of the charge sheet as to why action should not be taken against him. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 10.10.1999 stating that whenever he was absent or could not attend to duty due to his sickness, he was informing the Branch orally and that he was submitting leave applications immediately after joining the Branch and that it was not his intention to dislocate the branch work, but only due to sickness, he had abstained from duty and it was not intentional.
4. However, not satisfied with the explanation of the petitioner, the disciplinary authority appointed one Sri S. Sridhara Rao, Assistant Personnel Manager, Zonal Office, Hyderabad as enquiry officer to conduct an enquiry in the matter. The enquiry officer issued a letter dt.03.11.1999 requesting the petitioner to appear on 22.11.1999 and W.P.No.11696 of 2003 3 submit his evidence. The petitioner participated in the enquiry proceedings and the enquiry officer held that the charges of unauthorised absence were proved against the petitioner. Taking the enquiry report into consideration, the disciplinary authority vide proceedings dt.01.03.2000 imposed a punishment of compulsory retirement from service of the bank with immediate effect with superannuation benefits as would be due otherwise at that stage and without disqualification from future employment. Against the same, the petitioner preferred an Appeal and the appellate authority confirmed the punishment of compulsory retirement from service and the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition questioning the same.
5. There was no interim direction in this case.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S. Srinivasa Sharma, reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below that the petitioner worked as an Attender for nearly 15 years without any complaint from anybody except for brief spells of unauthorised absence due to ill-health of his mother and father. He submitted that a charge sheet was issued not only for unauthorised absence of 110 days but also for earlier misconduct for which the petitioner had already been punished. He submitted that though the enquiry officer referred to the punishment awarded to the petitioner on earlier occasions, copies of the documents were not given to him, which itself is in violation of the principles of natural justice. He submitted that along W.P.No.11696 of 2003 4 with the leave applications, the petitioner had submitted medical certificates in support of his ill-health and the respondents have not denied the said certificates nor have they referred the medical certificates for verification and therefore, non-consideration of the proper explanation of the petitioner as reasonable explanation for his absence is arbitrary and illegal. Further, he submitted that the punishment of compulsory retirement from service for unauthorised absence of only 110 days is very harsh. Therefore, he prayed for reinstatement of the petitioner into service with continuity of service and back wages. He submitted that the punishment may be modified into a minor punishment, if need be. He also relied upon the following decisions in support of his contentions.
(1) Tarun Kumar De Biswas Vs. The Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal1. (2) State of U.P. Vs. Shatrughan Lal and another2. (3) N. Subramanyam Vs. Chairman, Visakhapatnam Port Trust and others3.
7. Ms. P. Deepthi, learned counsel representing Sri A. Krishnam Raju, learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the petitioner was a habitual unauthorised absentee and did not follow the rules for making a leave application. She argued at length on the applicability of the leave rules to the petitioner and the bipartite agreement between the union and the bank, even according 1 1991(3) S.C.T. 438 2 (1998) 6 SCC 651 3 1998 (1) ALT 501 W.P.No.11696 of 2003 5 to which, the unauthorised absence of the petitioner was a misconduct requiring the punishment of compulsory retirement from service. She placed reliance upon the following case law in support of her contentions.
(1) New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Vipin Behari Lal Srivastava4.
(2) State of Punjab Vs. Dr. P.L. Singla5.
8. Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, it is seen that the petitioner was charged with unauthorised absence of 110 days in the charge sheet. It was also pointed out that the petitioner had remained absent unauthorisedly in the earlier spells for which he was awarded minor punishments and that in spite of such punishments, the petitioner has not mended his ways and remained unauthorisedly absent for 110 days during the period between 16.12.1998 and 16.04.1999. The contention of the petitioner that the punishment of compulsory retirement has been awarded on the basis of the punishments already awarded for earlier spells of unauthorised absence is not substantiated. Merely because the earlier punishments have been mentioned in the charge sheet, it does not mean that the punishment has been imposed on the basis of the earlier punishments awarded for earlier spells of absence. During the course of the enquiry, it has been proved that the petitioner had remained absent for the period of 110 days without making any leave application or 4 (2008) 3 SCC 446 5 (2008) 8 SCC 469 W.P.No.11696 of 2003 6 without submitting any medical certificate. The petitioner had not raised any grounds about an opportunity not being given by the enquiry officer or by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority. After going through the enquiry report, it is seen that the petitioner was given ample and reasonable opportunity through examination and cross-examination of the witnesses and therefore, the findings of the enquiry officer cannot be interfered with at this stage.
9. As regards the punishment of compulsory retirement from service, this Court finds that the respondents have taken note of the earlier conduct of the petitioner in discharging his duties and because the petitioner had not challenged the earlier punishments, they have become final and it has been proved that he was a habitual absentee and was not informing the bank about his absence before taking leave and therefore, the punishment of compulsory retirement from service has been imposed. The bank has granted all retirement benefits to the petitioner as on the date of punishment and therefore, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the orders of the authorities below.
10. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
11. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, in this Writ Petition shall also stand dismissed.
___________________________ JUSTICE P. MADHAVI DEVI Date: 24.01.2022 Svv