Punjab-Haryana High Court
Punjab National Bank And Ors vs H P Gupta on 23 September, 2014
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal, Arun Palli
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
LPA No. 1218 of 2014 ( O&M )
DATE OF DECISION : 23.09.2014
Punjab National Bank and others
.... APPELLANTS
Versus
H.P. Gupta
.... RESPONDENT
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI
Present : Mr. Ravi Sharma, Advocate,
for the appellants.
***
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. ( Oral ) Punjab National Bank and others have filed this intra court appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent challenging the order dated November 28, 2013, passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition (CWP No. 7849 of 1993) filed by H.P. Gupta (respondent herein) was allowed and the order dated September 15, 1992 (Annexure P-3) passed by the punishing authority, awarding punishment of censure and denial of wages to the respondent for the period of his suspension, except the subsistence allowance already paid to him; and the order dated February 09, 1993 (Annexure P-5) passed by the appellate authority affirming the aforesaid order, were set aside, and the appellant bank was directed to calculate and release the amount due to the respondent which was denied to DASS NAROTAM 2014.09.30 12:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document LPA No. 1218 of 2014 ( O&M ) -2- him, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order along with interest @ 12% per annum.
Though there is a delay of 144 days in filing the appeal and the appellants have filed an application (CM No. 2743-LPA of 2014) for condoning the delay, yet we have heard the learned counsel for the appellants on merits, and have gone through the order, passed by the learned Single Judge.
In this case, the learned Single Judge set aside the aforesaid orders passed by the punishing and the appellate authorities, solely on the ground that before passing the punishment order, the authorities did not comply with the principle of natural justice, as no opportunity of hearing was afforded to the respondent. In this regard, the following findings were recorded by the learned Single Judge :
"Petitioner has specifically raised his grievance in para 2 of his appeal (Annexure P-4) that he was not even associated during the enquiry proceedings. Further he has taken specific averments in para 9 (2) of the writ petition that he was not afforded any opportunity of being heard before passing the impugned orders. This specific averment has not been denied by the respondent-bank in corresponding paragraph of its reply, thereby impliedly admitting this material fact that no opportunity of being heard was granted to the petitioner either by the disciplinary authority or by the appellate authority. In this view of the matter, it is unhesitatingly held that the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority have proceeded on wholly misconceived approach, while passing their respective impugned orders, because of which they cannot be sustained."DASS NAROTAM 2014.09.30 12:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document LPA No. 1218 of 2014 ( O&M ) -3-
On the said findings, the learned Single Judge further observed as under :
"A combined reading of both the impugned orders Annexure P-3 as well as Annexure P-5 would show that neither the disciplinary authority nor the appellate authority has even made an effort to grant an opportunity of being heard to the petitioner before passing their respective impugned orders. It is undisputed on record that civil consequences would entail from passing of the impugned orders. In view of this factual aspect of the matter, order dated 19.12.1991 passed by a Division Bench of this court in P. Sehgal's case (supra) would squarely cover the case of the petitioner in his favour. Having said that, this court feels no hesitation to conclude that the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority failed to comply with the principles of natural justice, while passing their respective impugned orders and the same cannot be sustained."
Learned counsel for the appellants could not controvert the aforesaid factual position with regard to providing opportunity of hearing to the respondent and complying with the principle of natural justice. In view of the aforesaid factual position, we are of the opinion that the learned Single Judge has rightly set aside the orders of the punishing and the appellate authorities, while relying upon a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 2543 of 1991 (P. Sehgal Vs. State of Punjab). Thus , we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
No merit. Dismissed.
( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL )
JUDGE
September 23, 2014 ( ARUN PALLI )
ndj JUDGE
DASS NAROTAM
2014.09.30 12:13
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document