Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sadhu Ram vs Uco Bank And Others on 26 August, 2013
C.W.P. No.6986 of 2010 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No.6986 of 2010
Date of decision : 26.08.2013
Sadhu Ram ...... Petitioner
versus
UCO Bank and others ...... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI
***
Present : Mr. Suman Jain, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. K.K. Garg, Advocate
for the respondents.
***
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 order of dismissal imposed upon him and seeks quashing of show-cause-notice dated 28.05.2007 (Annexure P-2), letter dated 10.12.2007 (Annexure P-5), enquiry report dated 20.11.2008 (Annexure P-8), punishment order dated 06.01.2009 (Annexure P-9) and the appellate order dated 18.06.2009 (Annexure P-11).
The petitioner was employed by the respondent-Bank as a Sharma Ashish 2013.09.02 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh C.W.P. No.6986 of 2010 -2- Clerk on 08.07.1986. During his service he started two Co-operative societies alongwith other members namely Bhiwani Insurance Bank Employee Coop. (SE) T & C Society Ltd. in the year 1997 and Banjrang Bali Coop. N.A.T. & C. Society Ltd. in the year 1999. The following charges were framed against him being Secretary of the said Societies:-
"1. Shri Sadhu Ram as Secretary of the Society (5) was canvassing deposits for the societies and did not ensure/make payment of the deposits kept with the Society (5) by its customers and he being an officer employee of UCO Bank tarnished the image of the Bank by his unwarranted act of omission. This is violative of Regulation 3(1) & Regulation 17 of the UCO Bank Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulation, 1976 as amended and is an act unbecoming of Bank Officer.
2. Shri Sadhu Ram absented himself from his duties unauthorizedly without any information/permission. This is violative of Regulation 3(1) of the UCO Bank Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulation, 1976 as amended which reads as under:-
No officer employee shall absent himself from his duty or leave the station without having first obtained the permission of the Competent Authority."
With regard to Charge No.1 it is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had started the Cooperative Societies which were primarily targeted at Bank employees. The modus- operandi of the Societies floated by the petitioner was that they would solicit deposits giving slightly higher rate of interest than the Bank. The Sharma Ashish 2013.09.02 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh C.W.P. No.6986 of 2010 -3- amounts so deposited would be loaned to eligible members of the Societies and whatever profit was made was for the benefit of the societies. It is also not disputed that the allegation that in some cases the amounts were not returned on maturity was proved. Inquiry Officer however further found that there was no allegation of misappropriation against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has very fairly argued that in some cases there was delay in refund of deposits but that occurred only when borrowers defaulted in making the repayments and as and when the repayments were made the entire deposited amount along with contractual interest was paid to the depositors.
With regard to Charge No.2 also it was proved that the petitioner remained absent on certain occasions without any information/permission.
The disciplinary authority awarded the petitioner the punishment of dismissal for Charge No.1 and for Charge No.2 awarded him censure. His appeal having been dismissed the petitioner is before this Court.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that apart from the legal issue whether the inquiry against him had to be conducted under the provisions of the UCO Bank, Officer Employees (Disciplinary Appeal) Regulations, 1976 or the Bipartite Settlement dated 10.04.2002 (since at the time of occurrence the petitioner was a workman), the fact of the matter is that there is no allegation of any personal wrong-doing. As per the learned counsel, many employees in many banks and other financial areas float such Sharma Ashish 2013.09.02 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh C.W.P. No.6986 of 2010 -4- kind of thrift and credit societies. Learned counsel has further argued that had there been any allegation that the petitioner had misappropriated any amount the aforementioned punishment may have been justified but there is no such allegation.
The parameter for judicial interference in matters of punishment was laid down in case of Union of India and another vs S.S. Ahluwalia, 2007(7) SCC 257, wherein it has been 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......"
Keeping in view the nature of allegations, I am convinced that the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the charges levelled against the petitioner. In the circumstances, I deem it appropriate to set aside the punishment order (Annexure P-9) and the appellate order (Annexure P-11) and remand the case back to the disciplinary authority to pass a fresh order of punishment. It is however made clear that the affect of the punishment and appellate order having been set aside would not automatically entitle the petitioner to all consequential benefits and the same would depend on the fresh order to be passed by the disciplinary authority. Ordered accordingly. Sharma Ashish 2013.09.02 17:25 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh C.W.P. No.6986 of 2010 -5-
Let the necessary exercise be conducted within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
Since the main case has been decided, the pending civil miscellaneous application, if any, also stands disposed of.
( AJAY TEWARI )
August 26, 2013 JUDGE
ashish
Sharma Ashish
2013.09.02 17:25
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
Chandigarh