Gauhati High Court
Ajit Kr. Choudhury vs The Union Of India & Ors on 25 November, 2011
Author: N.Kotiswar Singh
Bench: N.Kotiswar Singh
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
( THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND,
MEGHALAYA,MIZORAM, MANIPUR, TRIPURA AND
ARUNACHAL PRADESH )
-PRESENT -
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE(ACTG.) MR A.K.GOEL
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.KOTISWAR SINGH
WRIT APPEAL NO.37/2007
APPELLANT :
Sri Ajit Kumar Chowdhury,
S/o Late T.C. Chowdhury,
Manager, UCO Bank, Rehabari
Branch, Nizaraban Path,
Fatasil Ambari, Guwahati-25.
BY ADVOCATES :
Mr P. Roy,
Ms C.Shome, Advocates
RESPONDNTS :
1. The Union of India,
Represented by the Secretary,
Govt. of India, Ministry of
Finance, Department of Banking etc.,
New Delhi.
2. Chairman and Managing Director,
UCO Bank, 10, B.T.M. Sarani
( Brabourne Road), Kolkata-700001.
Writ Appeal No.37/2007 page 1 of 6
3. Executive Director,
UCO Bank, 10, B.T.M. Sarani
(Brabourne ), Kolkata-700001.
4. General Manager, G.M. OP
III, UCO Bank, 1, R.M. Mukherjee
Road( 3rd Floor), Kolkata-700001.
5. Assistant General Manager
(Personnel), UCO Bank, 1, R.M .
Mukherjee Road(3rd Floor),
Kolkata-700001.
6. Zonal Manager, UCO Bank,
M.D. Road, Guwahati-781003.
7. Regional Manager,
UCO Bank, Regional Office,
T.R.P. Road, P.O. Jorhat.
BY ADVOCATES:
Mr P. C. Goswami,Advocate
Date of hearing & Judgment : 25.11.2011.
JUDGMENT AND ORDER(ORAL)
[Goel,C J(Actg.)] :-
This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and
order dated 15.9.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ
Writ Appeal No.37/2007
Page 2 of 6
Petition( C) No. 109(SH)/2002 dismissing the writ petition of the
appellant against the imposition of penalty of reduction by one
stage in the time scale of pay for one year, for the proved
misconduct.
2. The appellant was employed in the respondent Bank in the
year 1977. In the year 1999, disciplinary proceedings were drawn up against him on the allegation of staying at a place outside from duty in violation of the rules, questioning the authority of the superior officer in taking administrative decision by writing letter dated 25.5.1999 ; instigating the staff to indiscipline and insubordination ; not implementing the principle of "No work no pay" against the employees who participated in the strike; not issuing office order for monthly balance of Books etc.; sanctioning of loan without following the due procedure. Accordingly, charged were framed. The appellant denied the charges. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report which was in favour of the appellant, but the disciplinary authority vide letter dated 6.4.2001 issued a notice to the appellant of dis-agreement with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The disciplinary authority finally held that Charge Nos.1 & 5 were partially proved, charge Nos 2, 3 and 7 were proved and Charge Nos 4 and 6 were not proved.
3. The appellant, being aggrieved by the order of the disciplinary authority filed a writ petition before this Court on the plea that the Zonal Manager was not the competent authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings and that the findings of the Writ Appeal No.37/2007 Page 3 of 6 disciplinary authority were based on no evidence. It was also submitted that the other members of the staff were also involved in the protest and joined the appellant in writing the letter dated 25.5.1999 on the basis of which the allegation of indiscipline was made and thus the appellant alone could not be treated in a discriminatory manner.
4. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the findings of the disciplinary authority could not be held to be without evidence. Discussing the charges, it was held that the charge No.1 pertaining to absence from the place of posting, was rightly held to be proved as the absence from the place of posting was unauthorized and not disputed. As regards the charges of indiscipline and insubordination covered by Charge Nos 2 and 3, the same were clearly proved. It was also not disputed that the appellant failed to deduct wages of the staff when they were on strike and did not perform work. Charge No.7 pertaining to sanctioning of loan without following due procedure of law was also clearly established. The plea of discriminatory treatment could not be accepted as the appellant was holding a responsible post and he could not be treated as per with subordinate staff.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant has raised only one question of discriminatory treatment in imposing the penalty. He submits that letter dated 25.5.1999 addressed to the Regional Writ Appeal No.37/2007 Page 4 of 6 Manager, which was stated to be insubordination and indiscipline, was a letter jointly written by the appellant and other members of the staff and in these circumstances, he alone could not be picked up for punishment. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bongaigaon Refinery & Petrochemicals Ltd and others vs. Girish Chandra Sarma, (2007) 7 SCC 206.
7. Learned counsel for the Bank supports the impugned order. He submits that the charge against the appellant was not only for indiscipline but also for not staying at the place of posting, not deducting salary of the employees for the period of strike and sanctioning of loan without following the due procedure. According, the penalty against the appellant was justified. He further submitted that the appellant was a higher officer and his misconduct could not be treated at par with other employees of the bank.
8. It is clear from the above that the appellant was found guilty not only for indiscipline, but also for other misconduct which findings have been upheld by learned Single Judge and not challenged before us. As rightly held by the learned Single Judge, in exercise of power of judicial review of findings of the disciplinary authority, this Court does not sit in appeal and such findings are interfered only when they are based on no evidence and are perverse. Since other charges have also been proved, Writ Appeal No.37/2007 Page 5 of 6 even if the charge of indiscipline is ignored, the penalty does not call for any interference.
9. In view of the above, there is no ground to interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE(ACTG.) BARUAH Writ Appeal No.37/2007 Page 6 of 6