Karnataka High Court
Union Bank Of India vs The Commissioner For Persons With ... on 20 May, 2010
Author: H N Nagamohan Das
Bench: H N Nagamohan Das
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BAN
DATED THIS THE 2o"" DAY OF MAY, _2'(I1IIf
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE .H.N. N.AG'AMOHAN
W.1~".No. 1689::/2997
BETWEEN: I I A
UNION BANK OF INDIA" ~ = .
ABANKING COMPANY UNDER j I ;,
THE BANKING REGULATION;ACT;-I949 *
A GOVT. OF INIjI"AIIIAUNE~BER'1'AKING
UNION BANK"B.HA3xTAN,..239--~.,_ I
VIDHAN BHAVAN I
NARIMAN.PO1N'T'*1:;, N» I I
MUMEGAI%40@io2I
REP. BY ITS' GENERAL, _
MANAGER (HRM)_. ' A ..PETITIONER
(By S.I°i.~ K KASTURI, sf. COUNSEL, FOR
. t M/S*.'-IKASTURI ASSOCIATES, ADVS.)
' I
I. THE COMMISSIONER FOR
PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
I (UNDER THE PERSONS WITH
I DISABILITIES EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES,
" ~'I>RO"rEC"rION OF RIGHTS AND
FULL PARTICIPATION) ACT, 1995
NO. 40, THAMBUCHETTY ROAD
COX TOWN
BANGALORE ~«~ 560 005.
OW
2. Sri. T R RAGHUKUMAR
G~95, I FLOOR
I CROSS (OLD VILA CROSS)
BEHIND S V N SCHOOL
GAYATHRI NAGAR
BANGALORE -- 560 021. .REsRONnEN*rS ' to
{By Sri. TR RAGHUKUMAR, PARTYitNRERs.ON
Sri.NAMARESH,CGSC,FORR-1.) R
--m
mrs WRIT RETr_r1ON FILED 'U/A 22e.._&y227 OF
CONSTITUTION OF rNDt.A _P'RAY0iN(?"'~TO QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 3.9.2007 ;:ANNEXERE-'r1jjA,ND_ DT.29.9.2007 W
ANNEXUREJ PASSED BY 'THE"_VRES?ON*I)ENT NO.1 AND
THIS..- 1APE:T':'r£ON HEARD AND
RESERVED FO£§. _'O?RDEVR~S_,V H.-NNAGAMOHAN DAS. J,
PRONOUNCED .THE'j'E.OLI..O.W'i--NG;
" . ._ "'Q._;K-DDER
S * A V 0' xiwit petitionwthe petitioner has prayed for a writ in the
Srztatiire quash the order dated 03.09.2007 -- Annexure
H aDd««.the v._:5rdeAr'~"dated 29.09.2007 M Annexure I passed by the first
~ .. _, -- .. résponderm 0.
2. Petitioner is a nationalised bank engaged in the business of
S 0' 0' banking. Second respondent joined the services of petitioner «-- Bank
cw"
in the year 1978 as Agricultural Field Officer. Second respondent
was promoted from time to time and he was working as Senior
Manager between May 1998 and May 2003 in Cantonrpne-n.t,y'bransihu
and Industrial Finance Branch at Bangalore (for .._Tiie"0
petitioner -- Bank noticed certain irregularities, "mani'p--u14at.i'on
accounting entries, violation of byankfling p0r'o_cedure
have been committed by second "C0onsvequently the
petitioners issued a memoranduzn as p0Aer0Annexure
A calling upon the second vresp:oiide.nt0_to explanation to
the misconduct second"'i*espondent submitted
his reply B. Since the explanation of
the second respon.dent._w'asSnot" satisfactory, the petitioner -- Bank
---.&_issued'~§*articles of ci*1*ar.ges_von 02.04.2005. The second respondent
0"._1subvrnitted--._his :x'epiy.yon 10.05.2005. Since the reply of the second
respondent iw?-as; not convincing, the petitioner -- Bank initiated
[enquiry proceedings. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report as per
ijlininexszre dated 19.09.2005 stating that some of the charges as
'riproyed, some of the charges as partly proved and some of the
uukcharges as not proved. The Disciplinary Authority by accepting the
enquiry report passed an order of penalty dated
cornpulsorily retiring the second respondent from
Aggrieved by this order of penalty the second responczlentifirled_an..vi 0"
appeal before the Appellate Authority. iSirnnlltarieo€isly~
respondent also filed a petiton befo_re'---the first respondent._'u-nderthe
provisions of Persons with Disabiiljities'=.._(EqualA Qppoirtunities,
Protection of Rights and FiullipPartici'pation)':t 1995 (for short
'PWD' Act)
3. respondent came to be
rejected the Appel.:l'atei yide order dated 12.06.2007 as
per AnnexurieiE_.iiAgainsti the order of Disciplinary Authority and the
.*'v.y_ordeF"bf Appellatei'"Authority the second respondent filed a writ
petitionppbiefore'Court in W.P. No. 2048442007 and the same is
pending aajuaiieaiien.
the complaint filed by second respondent under the
iiixvsprovissionsiiiof FWD Act the first respondent issued notice to the
-- petitioner. Accordingly the petitioner entered appearance before the
éfiev
~ . p_petiti'Oi3.er
first respondent, filed written statement and additiona1._Wr.itte_n
statement opposing the claim of second respondent§]':i..iTii€'j~--firsfii___ _
respondent after hearing both the parties passed thc'1'nipijgned: order: ii
dated 04.09.2009 -- Annexure H directing the
of petitioner m Bank to review the ordcrof Appellate
i2.06.2007 as per Annexure H ..tinie_frarne'* The
petitioner -- Bank, by their --daitedf:0i.ii. i'0ii200'7--..requested the first
respondent to extend 'order. The first
respondent tii.nei.'passediiithe impugned order
dated 29.v09.--200"?{at petitioner to cancel the
order respondent and to reinstate him
with all coniseguentiia1_.iihenietiiits.0 Hence, this writ petition by the
ii 5. iHeard'«arguments on both the side and perused the entire
i5vrit'., __ ~ . 0
es 6. "it is not in dispute that the provisions of PWD Act are
iapiflicaible to the petitioner -- Bank. Section 62 of the FWD Act
specifies that the first respondent W Commissioner is entitled to.i_look
into the matter relating to :~
a. Deprivation of rights of persons with disabi.l--itie's;_ '
b. Non--irnplementation of laws, sales...etc.,ii'--foiytheiiwelfare.p f
and protection of rights ofpe_rsons"w_itli disa§)il'i.ties;v
e. To take up the matter with theapprpopriate authority.
7. Thus there is no power'i~w_ith['theivfirstifespondent to hold the
order of penalty ;asi'in_yalidi=__The~.firs't cannot sit as an
Appellate/Revis_ional'the order of penalty. The order
of penalty, of 'compuil}S0ffy'»..retirement of second respondent from
service was notpoii, account"of_ii.i1isabilities suffered by him. On the
-V . otherV_»hand__t1ie_order''of.penalty was based on proved misconduct by
msecorid.res.pondent'. .._Even in the impugned order at Annexure J the
firstrespondent'j_adnnts the legai position that he has no jurisdiction
'under the Act to entertain issues concerning legality of enquiry
'pioceedings conducted by the petitioner - Bank. But the first
_.__ii"'iresipondent in the impugned order frames the following issues for his
consideration.
&"W
Whether the respondent bank proves that the jobs/'posts
assigned to the complainant were those suitable
complainant as is envisaged under the PWD . V"
Whether the respondent bank proves' tliatlthe; «cor'nplain'ar1t
was provided with assistance or assnistive aids/de'vises'=for.y W'
carrying out the duties assilgi1.ed.to hiin?
Whether the compiainan«t'proves th-at utiliaation of his
services by the respondent jobs/posts viz.,
Accountant"i;i,étc and also 'requiring__,him to work with
and exploitation which
ltantaznouiit and harassment?
..Whetlieril"thveh7'coi'nplainant proves that respondent bank
E{l§3pI'i_7.red his rights as a visually handicapped
V W' vpeirsonrV"toyl£iefend himself in a departmental inquiry?
Wheltlier the respondent bank proves that it has
"i:'npleni.ented the provisions of the FWD Act in its
organization and have not vioiated any of the provisions
of the said Act with respect to the complainant?
f. Whether the complainant proves that his removalypfroumthe
services by compulsory retiring him from the''s'erfvie:e's:_of'« %
the respondent bank is illegal and viol_ative.: <47 of 2
the FWD Act?
g. Other miscellaneous': issues bincltsdingvfl"yyhetherl
complainant is entitled forithe relief prayed by him?
8. A reading of -- :.issue's ._framed by the first
respondent and hi._s'finding"on' tbVese"issues nianifestly makes it clear
that he is de.oidin_g 1egali_ty -or :5'therwise of the order of penalty
passedsvby Aufth§_rity asfif he is an Appellate/Revisional
Authority. V' This ' the first respondent is Without
jurisdiction. 'already pointed out the second respondent
questioned the ordermofv penalty by filing an appeal before the
When the appeal filed by the second
respondent to be rejected he is before this Court in WP. No.
Therefore the impugned order passed by the first
' 'respondent is liable to be quashed.
9. For the reasons stated above, the following;
fa
ORDER
i. Writ petition is hereby allowed. ii. The impugned order at Aimexiire 3;déted':2;9.ij9.2'GO'ie- isu it hereby quashed.
iii. Ordered according1y:"'*~..,.V LRS.