Punjab-Haryana High Court
Maya Ram Nahar V vs Punjab National Bank Andothers on 22 October, 2013
CWP No. 18780 of 2013 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 18780 of 2013
Date of Decision: 22.10.2013
Maya Ram Nahar v. ........Petitioner
versus
Punjab National Bank andothers ......... Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari
Present: Mr.D.S.Adhlakha, Advocate
for the petitioner.
****
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Ajay Tewari, J. (Oral):
By this petition the petitioner has challenged the imposition of penalty of lowering down his pay by two stages and also the order that for the period he remained during suspension he would not get anything except the subsistence allowance. The following charges had been framed against the petitioner:-
a) You while working as officiating CTO-B on 03.03.2009,misbehaved with the handicapped lady customer namely Ms.Renu resident of Village:Ram Kheri, Prresident of Shakshar Mahila Samooh, RamKheri, having saving fund account number 0548000102414177 and the teacher namely Shri Jarnail Singh resident of Village Sandhay having saving fund account no. 0548000102391441 in the bank premises. Nagpal Sunita
b) You assaulted Shri Jarnail Singh Teacher in the bank 2013.10.29 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 18780 of 2013 2 premises in the presence of staff members including Senior Manager and other clientele which dragged the bank to the police station and put the working of the branch to halt which adversely affected the customer service of the branch. Due to publication of incident dated 03.03.2009 in the news papers namely Dainik Bhaskar, Punjab Kesari, Dainik Jagran, Abhi Abhi & Amar Ujala on 04.03.2009 & 05.03.2009 respectively, image of the bank in the eyes of public has been tarnished and bank has been put to irreparable loss.
c) Your behaviour towards customers is discourteous and riotous. Big chunk of clientele is not happy with your attitude. You did not mend yourself despite issuance of various memorandums to this effect upon you by the Branch Manager."
After regular inquiry the petitioner was found guilty of charges No. (b) and (c). It was held that charge No. (a) was partly proved but charge No. (b) was fully proved and charge No. ( c ) was also partly proved. After giving a second show cause notice to the petitioner, the punishment as detailed above, was imposed upon him. He filed an appeal which was also rejected. Hence the present petition.
Learned counsel has firstly argued that the charge against the petitioner has not been proved. I find myself unable to agree to this argument. It has to be kept in mind that while sitting in extra ordinary jurisdiction this Court is not acting as an Appellate Authority.
The second argument of learned counsel is that the punishment is disproportionate to the charges found to be proved. I regret that I cannot subscribe to the conclusion that the punishment levied upon the petitioner is so disproportionate as to shock the conscience of this Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and another vs Nagpal Sunita 2013.10.29 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 18780 of 2013 3 S.S.Ahluwalia, 2007(7) SCC 257, has held as follows :-
".... The scope of judicial review in the matter of imposition of penalty, as a result of disciplinary proceedings, is very limited. The Court can interfere with the punishment only if it finds the same to be shockingly disproportionate to the charges found to be proved. In such a case, the Court is to remit the matter to the disciplinary authority for reconsideration of the punishment. In an appropriate case, in order to avoid delay the court can itself impose lesser penalty......"
Resultantly this argument is also rejected.
The third point taken by learned counsel is that the charge No.
(c) was ambiguous. He has referred to Surath Chandra Chakravarty v. The State of West Bengal reported as AIR 1971 SC 752 to contend that where the charges are not specific the enquiry is vitiated and has relied upon the following observations made by his lordships:-
4.........................We need refer only to para 19(a) of the plaint in which it was pleaded that the enquiry was vitiated because under the rules and procedure for holding such enquiry the appellant was entitled to be furnished with definite charged. But the charges and allegations were vague, indefinite and lacking in material particulars and in spite of repeated requests these were neither made specific nor material particulars like, day, time, place and persons were supplied; In the written statement filed by the respondent it was denied that the charges or allegations were vague indefinite or lacking in material particulars as alleged..........."
However, what was noticed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard to the charges in that case was as follows:
"" ...........The grounds on which it is proposed to take action have to be reduced to the form of a definite charge or charges Nagpal Sunita 2013.10.29 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 18780 of 2013 4 which have to be communicated to the person charged together with a statement of the allegations on which each charge is based and any other circumstance which it is proposed to be taken into consideration in passing orders has also to be stated. This rule embodies a principle which is one of the basic contents of a reasonable or adequate opportunity for defending oneself. If a person is not told clearly and definitely what the allegations are on which the charges preferred against him are founded he cannot possibly, by projecting his own imagination, discover all the facts and circumstances that may be in the contemplation of the authorities to be established against him................"
In my considered opinion the facts drawn up by the said judgment are completely distinguishable from the facts of the present case since charges (a) and (b) specifically put the petitioner to notice of the exact acts of riotousness and discourtesy. Even though the second and third sentence of charge is not exact , yet the first sentence, read in reference to charges (a) and (b) is clear and definite enough for the petitioner to have been able to reply thereto satisfactorily. In these circumstances the judgment in the case of Surath Chandra Chakravarty(supra) would not help the petitioner.
In the circumstances this petition is dismissed.
( AJAY TEWARI ) JUDGE October 22, 2013 sunita Nagpal Sunita 2013.10.29 10:36 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document