Kerala High Court
D.Vijayakumar vs Union Bank Of India on 13 April, 2000
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
MONDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY 2016/14TH POUSHA, 1937
OP.No. 34382 of 2002 (R)
-------------------------
PETITIONER(S):
--------------------------
D.VIJAYAKUMAR,
S/O. LATE M.K.DAMODARAN NAIR, AGED 48, ASST.MANAGER
UNION BANK OF INDIA, THIRUVALLA BRANCH
RESIDING AT RELAX, ARPOOKARA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.M.R.RAJENDRAN NAIR (SR.)
SRI.M.R.SUDHEENDRAN
SRI.NIDHI BALACHANDRAN
SRI.HARIRAJ
SMT.VINEETHA B.
RESPONDENT(S):
----------------------------
1. UNION BANK OF INDIA,
REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, CENTRAL OFFICE
239, VIDHAN BHAVAN MARG, NARIMAN POINT
MUMBAI-400 021.
2. THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (P),
APPELLATE AUTHORITY, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL
UNION BANK OF INDIA, CENTRAL OFFICE, NARIMAN POINT
MUMBAI.
3. THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY,
IR DEPARTMENT, UNION BANK OF INDIA, CENTRAL OFFICER
239, VIDHAN BHAVAN MARG, NARIMAN POINT
MUMBAI-400 021.
R, BY ADV. SRI.A.S.P.KURUP, SC, UBI
ADV. SRI SADJITH KURUP
THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04-01-2016,
ALONG WITH OP. 34397/2002, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
OP NO.34382/2002
APPENDIX
PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:
EXT.P1 : TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM DT 1.2.1997 BY THE
ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER UNION BANK OF INDIA,
REGIONAL OFFICE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TO THE
PETITIONER
EXT.P2 : TRUE COPY OF THE ARTCLES OF CHARGE DT 16.1.98 ISSUED BY
THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY TO THE PETITIONER
EXT.P3 : TRUE COPY OF THE INQUIRY REPORT DT 8.3.1999 TO THE
PETITIONER
EXT.P4 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. IRD 8684/99 DT 29.10.99 ISSUED BY
THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY
EXT.P5. : TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL MEMORANDUM DT 20.12.99
SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE APPELLATE
AUTHORITY
EXT.P6 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE ASSISTANT KGENERAL MANAGER,
REGIONAL OFFICE, UNION BANK OF INDIA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DT 5.2.2000
EXT.P7 : TRUE COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE
PETITIONER BEFORE THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER,
REGIONAL OFFICE, UNION BANK OF INDIA,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DT 8.2.2000
EXT.P8 : TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON'BLE COUR DT
30.3.2000 IN OP 9995/2000
EXT.P9 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. ROT PER 153 DATED 13.4.2000
ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE BANK
EXT.P10 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DT 27.7.2000 ISSUED BY THE
APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO THE PETITIONER
EXT.P11 : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO. DP: PPS: NF: 1702:2000 DT
25.11.2000 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER
RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:
EXT.R1(a) : TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO . NRO: E: PER: 2049:03 DT 3.7.2003
PASSED BY THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY
TRUE COPY
P.A TO JUDGE
jma
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J
- - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
O.P Nos. 34382 of 2002 & 34397 of 2002
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 04th day of January, 2016
J U D G M E N T
Both the original petitions are filed by the very same petitioner; one challenging imposition of major penalty and the other challenging the dismissal from service. The imposition of major penalty pales into insignificance, going by the facts of the other case. Hence OP No.34397/2002 is considered first.
2. The petitioner had availed of a leave for 180 days between 12.06.2000 to 08.12.2000, allegedly for making arrangements to enable his daughters to study in New Zealand. While the petitioner was on leave, Staff Circular dated 20.10.2000 was brought out, produced herein as Ext.P1, which enables employees who had completed ten years of service to get five years leave. The petitioner then filed an application for leave based on Ext.P1 circular on 11.11.2000, by Ext.P2 for five years. Obviously OPNos. 34382/2002,34397/2002 : 2 : the leave was not sanctioned and the sanctioned leave of 180 days expired on 08.12.2000. The petitioner did not rejoin duty and overstayed his leave.
3. The petitioner himself is also said to have joined for a course in New Zealand along with his daughters. The petitioner contends that he had been repeatedly seeking for leave by representations at Exts.P4 and P5. The Bank however, initiated disciplinary proceedings for un-authorised absence and terminated the petitioner from service, by Ext.P15 and the same was confirmed in appeal by Ext.P18. The petitioners contention is that the petitioner was never communicated the result of his application for leave and in such circumstance, he should be deemed to be entitled to be continued on leave for five years from the date of his application.
4. Admittedly, the petitioner had sanctioned leave only up to 08.12.2000. The mere fact that the petitioner had sent OPNos. 34382/2002,34397/2002 : 3 : an application for leave on the strength of Ext.P1 circular would not enable the petitioner to continue on leave, beyond the period of sanction, unless there is a further sanction. If no sanction was effected after the expiry of the sanctioned leave, then necessarily the petitioner had to re-join duty and then seek for a further leave under Ext.P1 circular.
5. The issue is also covered by a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in W.A No.172/2010 dated 15.07.2015. In an identical situation,the petitioner therein had proceeded on leave and having not rejoined duty after the expiry of the leave; submitted an application for five years leave as per the circular aforecited. The Division Bench noticed that, after expiry of the leave, the petitioner neither joined duty nor responded to the disciplinary proceedings and continued the unauthorized absence. The leave application said to have been filed on the strength of the Circular, was also not sanctioned. OPNos. 34382/2002,34397/2002 : 4 : The leave having not been sanctioned, it was held that it was obligatory on the part of the employee to return and rejoin duty. Though in that case, there was a specific order declining the leave, the fact that no sanction was made in the present case does not at all create any cause for a different treatment. It is also very clear that the petitioner herein also, did not participate in the disciplinary proceedings and even after issuance of notice for major misconduct of unauthorized absence, he had not thought it fit to rejoin duty. In such circumstance, following the above binding precedent of the Division Bench, O.P No.34397/2002 would stand dismissed.
6. O.P No.34382/2002 is with respect to a disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner which ended in the petitioner being imposed with the penalty of reduction in pay by two stages, which is a major penalty. The order so passed is produced as Ext.P4 dated 29.10.1999. The said OPNos. 34382/2002,34397/2002 : 5 : punishment was imposed after an enquiry proceedings in which the petitioner participated and the petitioner was also given adequate opportunity to proffer his defence. There is also no procedural irregularity alleged in the conduct of the disciplinary proceedings. Ext.P3 is an enquiry report to which the petitioner was permitted to submit a detailed objection, which was considered before the order of imposition of penalty was made.
7. It is trite that in disciplinary proceedings, the departmental authorities have sufficient elbow room in finding a person guilty, on the basis of the available evidence which need not necessarily conform to the standards to be maintained in a criminal trial. There is also sufficient leeway in exercising discretion as far as imposition of a punishment. This Court would not sit as an appellate Court from the findings of the Enquiry Officer or the disciplinary authority. The jurisdiction OPNos. 34382/2002,34397/2002 : 6 : conferred under Article 226 is confined, insofar as looking at the procedural irregularity including violation of principles of natural justice, vitiating the entire enquiry proceedings; which if found, the enquiry has to be resumed from the stage at which such defect is found.
8. In the present case, there is no such circumstance pointed out by the petitioner in the original petition. The allegation levelled is that there is absolutely no evidence recorded at the enquiry proceedings, based on which the punishment could have been imposed. Definitely, a total lack of available evidence would be a ground on which this Court could interfere since then the findings of the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority would be bad for the reason of the same being perverse. However, a reading of Ext.P3 enquiry report and the order of the disciplinary authority, this Court does not find any such gross perversity and it is on the findings OPNos. 34382/2002,34397/2002 : 7 : at the enquiry and the evidence adduced that the disciplinary authority has entered into such findings. Having held so this Court is of the opinion that there is no cause for interference on the imposition of major penalty under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Further it is to be noticed that immediately after the order of imposition of major penalty of reduction in pay by two stages; the petitioner had gone on 180 days leave and had remained unauthorizedly absent till 2003, when he was terminated; which challenge made in the other original petition has been negatived by this Court.
Hence O.P No.34382/2002 would also stand dismissed. Both the original petitions are dismissed. No costs.
Sd/-
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JUDGE)
jma //true copy//
P.A to Judge