Gujarat High Court
Purnimaben P. Chokshi vs Uco Bank on 29 April, 2022
Author: Ashutosh J. Shastri
Bench: Ashutosh J. Shastri
C/SCA/5216/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5216 of 2008
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI
=============================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to
see the judgment ? YES
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
YES
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the
judgment ? NO
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law
as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or NO
any order made thereunder ?
=============================================
PURNIMABEN P. CHOKSHI
Versus
UCO BANK
=============================================
Appearance:
MR AK CLERK(235) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR PRANAV G DESAI(290) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI
Date : 29/04/2022
CAV JUDGMENT
1. By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the legality and validity of the order passed by the disciplinary authority of the respondent - Bank dated 27.04.2007 as also the order dated 03.10.2007 passed by the Page 1 of 41 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 15:53:16 IST 2022 C/SCA/5216/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2022 appellate authority.2. The facts which have given rise to filing of the present petition are that petitioner had joined the service of the respondent - Bank on 18.01.1977 as a Cashier-cum-Clerk at Nariman Point Mumbai Branch. On 01.02.1977, she was then transferred to Warden Road Branch and later on transferred to Kandiwali (West) Branch, on 15.04.1985 as a Cashier-cum-Clerk. Later on, on 12.05.1998 the petitioner was promoted as ALPM Operator at Kandiwali (West) Branch and then was promoted as CTO Operator at the said Branch with effect from 05.04.1999.
2.1. It is the case of the petitioner that later on she was transferred from Kandiwali (West) Branch to Ahmedabad Regional Office as a Clerk on 17.04.2003 on her own request. She joined her service at Ahmedabad Regional Office with effect from 18.04.2003 and later on, on 19.04.2003 was transferred to Muglisara Branch at Surat where she joined the service. The petitioner was then promoted as an Officer in JMG Scale-1 at Muglisara Branch, Surat on 16.10.2004 and was later on transferred to Halar Road, Valsad Branch on 27.07.2005 where she joined the service at the said Branch on the next date i.e. on 28.07.2005. It is further the case of the petitioner that on 09.04.2006, while she was working at Halar Road, Valsad Branch, she was asked to sign the balance-sheet of the Branch as on 31.03.2006. Since the rate of interest charged by the Branch was less than intimated by the Head Office/Regional Office, she did not sign Page 2 of 41 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 15:53:16 IST 2022 C/SCA/5216/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2022 the said balance sheet. However, later on, the Association instructed the petitioner telephonically to sign the balance sheet with necessary remarks and accordingly, the petitioner signed the balance-sheet with remarks on 10.04.2006, though the rate of interest charged by the Branch was less than the rate of interest required to be charged under the instructions of Head Office/Regional Office. It is on account of this episode, according to the petitioner, she was placed under suspension at around 3:00 pm on 12.04.2006 and since same was uncalled for, according to the petitioner, she demanded the supply necessary relevant documents by way of communication dated 11.05.2006, written to the Deputy General Manager. The petitioner was not furnished the said required copies of the documents, as a result of this, on 22.06.2006, the petitioner sent a reminder and also sought the reason for her suspension and pointed out that she was not served with even the show cause notice. Later on, on 26.06.2006, the petitioner received show cause notice and as such, with a view to give effective reply to the said show cause notice, the petitioner requested for extension of time to submit reply vide letter dated 30.06.2006. On 02.07.2006, the petitioner tendered her reply to the show cause notice and pointed out that she was not supplied with the relevant documents as sought for by her in the letters dated 11.05.2006 and 22.06.2006. She also asked for photocopies of the statements which she was asked to sign including the statements of Page 3 of 41 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 15:53:16 IST 2022 C/SCA/5216/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2022 customers and other staff members recorded by the Bank and other necessary documents. The petitioner emphatically submitted in her reply that she was under an obligation as an employee of bank and duty to point out that the rate of interest charged by the Branch was not correct and less than the rate prescribed by the Head Office/Regional Office. On account of this episode, she also reiterated that the Branch Manager at the relevant point of time was causing unnecessary harassment to her and was behaving with prejudice. She reiterated that she had put in 29 years blotless service and also pointed out that whenever she has been transferred, she joined the services without any demur and served with all sincerity. 2.2. It is further the case of the petitioner that on 13.10.2006, i.e. after almost a period of four months, charge sheet dated 05.10.2006 came to be submitted for her alleged misconduct. On 09.12.2006, she was informed that departmental inquiry is ordered to be held against her and as such, again the petitioner reiterated her request to supply necessary documents vide communication dated 23.12.2006 so as to enable her to make effective defence to face the inquiry. The said specific documents were pointed out in her communications which were found to be necessary. Later on, on 13.01.2007 departmental inquiry commenced at Halar Road, Valsad Branch and after preliminary discussions, was adjourned. On 01.02.2007, since petitioner's husband had to undergo an Page 4 of 41 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 15:53:16 IST 2022 C/SCA/5216/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2022 angiography and was actually admitted in the hospital and as such, on account of said genuine difficulty, she asked for adjournment on the said date i.e. 01.02.2007. According to the petitioner, without giving adequate time, third hearing was placed at Halar Road, Valsad Branch on 08.02.2007, where also, since her husband was already having an appointment of Cardiologist, she had to ask for time and as such, on 19.02.2007, fourth hearing took place of the said inquiry at Halar Road, Valsad Branch in which the respondent authority gave a list of management witnesses and as such, on 20.02.2007, petitioner had to ask to for time to prepare herself to cross-examine the witnesses of the Bank. But surprisingly the petitioner was not granted adjournment nor did the Bank examine any witnesses. On 20.02.2007, the petitioner was asked to submit her written brief which came to be submitted on 21.02.2007. On 10.03.2007, the petitioner straightway received written arguments from the Presenting Officer and accordingly on 12.03.2007, the petitioner also tendered her reply in the form of written arguments against the said written brief of Presenting Officer.
2.3. It is further the case of the petitioner that later on, on 29.03.2007, departmental inquiry was re-opened on the basis of the submissions made by both the sides, but the fact remains that according to the petitioner on 29.03.2007, the Bank did not examined any witnesses and suddenly between 29.03.2007 to 31.03.2007, the Page 5 of 41 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 15:53:16 IST 2022 C/SCA/5216/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2022 respondent examined as many as seven witnesses. The first witness who was examined by the Bank was Mr. P.C.Koli and the petitioner was in the process of cross-examining this witness on 30.03.2007 and at the end of the proceedings, on that date i.e. on 30.03.2007, cross- examination of said Mr. Koli - Bank witness remained incomplete and as such, the inquiry proceedings were adjourned to next date on 31.03.2007. On 31.03.2007, the said Bank witness Mr. Koli did not remained present in the inquiry and as such, in that incomplete form the petitioner was then asked to examine other witnesses. The petitioner resisted that it is the settled procedure of departmental inquiry that unless the cross-examination of one witness is over, cross-examination of second witness or other witnesses cannot be initiated and as such, the petitioner repeatedly made request to the authority to allow her to complete the cross-examination of said Bank witness Mr. Koli before starting the cross-examination of other witnesses. However, to the shock of the petitioner, the inquiry officer closed the cross-examination of the witnesses by the petitioner and asked her straightway to submit the written brief. 2.4. The petitioner under the said circumstances was constrained to submit written brief on 01.04.2007 and on 30.04.2007, the petitioner received an order of penalty reducing her basic pay by four stages for a period of four years. The said order of penalty which was though received by the petitioner on 30.04.2007 was of the even date Page 6 of 41 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 15:53:16 IST 2022 C/SCA/5216/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2022 of 27.04.2007. Subsequently with effect from 01.05.2007, the petitioner resumed the duty, and simultaneously had to submit an appeal before the appellate authority. Feeling aggrieved by the said order of penalty, appeal memo was presented on 01.07.2007. On 11.07.2007, the petitioner made further submission in the said process of appeal, but by way of order dated 03.10.2007, appeal preferred by the petitioner came to be rejected, which order with forwarding letter dated 17.10.2007 was received by the petitioner on 12.11.2007.
2.5. The petitioner has further asserted in the petition that the post of ALPM, Manager is a Scale-II Officer post and the petitioner has never been promoted to the said post i.e. ALPM Manager, which is a MMG Scale-II post and she was wrongly shown as ALPM Manger in the records and it is also not her duty to change the rate of interest and to give compliance of EDP audit report. In the aforesaid background of facts, feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with both the impugned orders passed by the disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority, the petitioner is constrained to approach this Court by way of present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2.6. After issuance of notice in the month of March, 2008, the petition was admitted by way of order dated 22.12.2008 and the Page 7 of 41 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 15:53:16 IST 2022 C/SCA/5216/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2022 implementation of the penalty order was ordered to be subject to the result of the petition and it is with this background since the pleadings have been completed, upon request of the learned advocates appearing for the respective sides, the matter is taken up for final hearing.
3. Mr. A.K. Clerk, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has vehemently contended that the impugned order of penalty is not only arbitrary, but titled with mala fides. It has been contended specifically that the petitioner had not committed any misconduct of whatsoever nature, as the Branch Manager the then was having clear grudge against the petitioner and the outcome of the entire proceedings is the said reflection by the Branch Manager. It has been clearly asserted by the petitioner that the financial statement as on 31.03.2006 which was asked to be signed from the petitioner contains less charging of rate of interest than what has been directed to be charged by the Head Office/Regional Office. It was specifically brought to the notice of the Branch manager that our branch cannot charge such less rate of interest than what has been instructed by the higher authorities. The said issue was made the subject of departmental inquiry though it has been asserted by the petitioner that the petitioner availed personal loan from the Bank and her bank statement shows higher rate of interest in her own loan account. The petitioner's statement was received from Muglisara Page 8 of 41 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 15:53:16 IST 2022 C/SCA/5216/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2022 Surat Branch where she was working prior to her transfer to Halar Road, Valsad branch and the rate of interest charged by Muglisara Surat Branch was 11.50% whereas Halar Road Valsad Branch had charged rate of interest without rounding off rate of interest and as such, effectively the rate of interest was charged less by the Branch and hence, at the relevant point of time, the petitioner did not signed the financial statement, but later on, upon instructions of the Association by putting a specific note to that effect on the financial statements, the same have been signed by the petitioner and as such, the entire episode cannot be construed as misconduct in any manner. On the contrary, as a duty bound employee, the petitioner pointed out to the officers about discrepancies of rate of interest and as such, the authority has acted with clear mala fides against the petitioner and hence arbitrary act was on account of grudge by the then Branch Manager. These aspects have not been considered by the authorities below in the right spirit and as such, the orders impugned in the petition deserve to be quashed and set aside.
3.1. Learned advocate Mr. Clerk has further vehemently contended that the petitioner on the contrary could not have been compelled by the Branch Manager to put the signature on the financial statement which is reflecting incorrect rate of interest contrary to what has been informed by the Head Office/Regional Office and as such, the petitioner cannot be considered to have committed any misconduct Page 9 of 41 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 15:53:16 IST 2022 C/SCA/5216/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2022 and therefore, the consequential order of penalty deserves to be quashed. Learned advocate Mr. Clerk has submitted that throughout the petitioner's long standing career of 29 years, except this episode, there is no other instances of any nature, which has given rise to file a complaint or raised any grievance against her and as such, the penalty imposed is disproportionate and thoroughly uncalled for and as such, the same deserves to be quashed in the interest of justice. 3.2. It has further been contended by learned advocate Mr. Clerk that the Branch Manager Mr. P.C. Koli was obliging several customers by not observing correct practice of the Bank and by observing the Rules in breach and as such, the Branch Manager as stated above tried to made the petitioner as scapegoat since the petitioner resisted, she is subjected to departmental inquiry. Apart from that, even the departmental inquiry, according to learned advocate Mr. Clerk is basically in gross violation of principles of natural justice. Not only the petitioner was not provided with relevant documents as specifically sought for by letters dated 11.05.2006; 22.06.2006; 02.07.2006 as well as 23.12.2006, but was compelled to participate in the departmental inquiry. It has further been pointed out that all these documents which were required by the petitioner were not supplied in toto but was supplied with only financial statements namely B5, 5, 6, 13, 14, 20, 21, 21A and 28 only and the remaining documents were not supplied which were crucial Page 10 of 41 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 15:53:16 IST 2022 C/SCA/5216/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2022 to go to the root of the matter. The petitioner asked for 'product sheet' from which the petitioner could establish that the Branch was charging rate of interest which was certainly less than what has been prescribed by the Head Office/Regional Office. These arguments though were absolutely relevant and would clearly indicate such irregularity of charging of rate of interest, these documents were not supplied which has adversely affect the right of making effective representation which clearly violates the principles of natural justice and this point was also specifically raised before the appellate authority but given an eye wash and as such, the orders passed by the authorities since are in conflict with the principles of natural justice, same deserve to be quashed and set aside.
3.3. In addition to this, learned advocate Mr. Clerk has submitted that the inquiry officer did not permit the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses examined by the Bank. Further as clearly pointed out that though said Mr. P.C. Koli who was in the witness box whose cross-examination is left incomplete since day was over and the matter was kept on 31.03.2007. The said Mr. Koli realizing the situation might not have remained present. Still the said request to complete examination of Mr. Koli was not adhered to and the inquiry officer in an autocratic manner closed the stage of inquiry and the petitioner was straightway asked to submit her written brief. This is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, and a hide and Page 11 of 41 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 15:53:16 IST 2022 C/SCA/5216/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2022 seek game played by the authority against the petitioner. Learned advocate Mr. Clerk has then referred to Regulation 6(13) of the UCO Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1975 and thereby contended that the petitioner was not allowed to cross- examine the witnesses examined by the Presenting Officer and as such, the entire inquiry process which has been undertaken against the petitioner is in clear violation of Regulation 6(13) and as such, the petitioner suffered a grave prejudice on account of violation of principles of natural justice as no adequate opportunity to defend and represent has been provided to the petitioner and that being so, the order of penalty deserves to be quashed.
3.4. Learned advocate Mr. Clerk has then submitted that Regulation 6(15) of the Regulations of Bank requires that the Presenting Officer should close the case, in support of the charges whereas, in the present case, the Presenting Officer never closed this case in support of charges. The petitioner was not allowed to state her defence orally nor in writing and to give her statement of defence and rather was not allowed to examine herself in her defence as per Regulation 6(16) of the Regulations so much so that petitioner was not allowed to examine any other witnesses in her support and hence the entire inquiry process has remained practically unilateral, not fair and in gross violation of Regulation 6(16) and also in violation of Page 12 of 41 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 15:53:16 IST 2022 C/SCA/5216/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2022 the principles of natural justice and as such, the consequential orders based upon such serious irregularities deserves to be quashed. According to learned advocate Mr. Clerk, in view of Regulation 6(17), the petitioner was required to close her evidence which she was not permitted to do so and no opportunity was given as said earlier to either examine herself or her witnesses and thereby compelled to close her case. As per Regulation 6(18) the inquiry officer can ask the parties to submit written briefs only after closure of evidence by both the sides namely by the employee as well as the Bank's side, whereas in the present case, the inquiry officer straightway has asked the petitioner to submit her written brief twice on 12.03.2007 as well as 31.03.2007 without closing respective sides case and as said earlier, cross-examination of Mr. P.C. Koli of the most relevant witnesses remained incomplete and this is the manner in which the entire inquiry summed up against the petitioner in gross violation and the orders of penalty have been inflicted upon putting a stigma to her entire 29 years blotless service. 3.5. Learned advocate Mr. Clerk has then submitted that the petitioner has worked at various Branches all throughout and with utmost sincerity and since she had worked at Mumbai city in several branches and also at Surat Branch and then was transferred to Halar Road Valsad Branch, the petitioner was having long standing service Page 13 of 41 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 15:53:16 IST 2022 C/SCA/5216/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2022 and was fully justified in making remarks while signing the financial statement that interest charged was not correct rate as prescribed by Head Office/Regional Office and surprisingly, though demanded, the petitioner was not supplied with a copy of EDP audit report, still was asked to comply with the said EDP audit report which is surprising for the petitioner that the Branch Manager had then subsequently filed the said EDP audit report in her service folder without her knowledge. This came to be noticed only when the petitioner was transferred to Atul Branch on 13.08.2007. 3.6. Additionally, learned advocate Mr. Clerk has submitted that in a situation like this, the order of penalty which has been imposed upon of reduction of four stages in pay-scale with future effect is too harsh and disproportionate to the charges levelled against the petitioner and even assuming without admitting that the charges are proved it is well settled that the penalty imposed upon on an employee must be commensurate with gravity of charge and the disciplinary authority was under an obligation to look into various aspects like service records, length of service, mitigating circumstances etc., and as such, while inflicting penalty by the disciplinary authority since all these factors have been given a go-bye the order of penalty deserves to be quashed in the interest of justice so much so that according to Mr. Clerk even the appellate authority Page 14 of 41 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 15:53:16 IST 2022 C/SCA/5216/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2022 though pointed out specifically has not discussed at length such issues and as such, the mechanical exercise of appellate powers also deserves to be deprecated. On account of this inflictment of penalty, the petitioner still has suffered the direct monetary loss to the extent of Rs. 4.50 lakhs on account of reduction of four stages in pay-scale as she had more than 6 ½ years service to remain at the relevant point of time and the resultant effect would be also on the substantial loss in the pension, gratuity and other retirement benefits as her salary as on superannuation would be reduced by four stages and as such, when such kind of serious impact is to be given to the petitioner on account of charge, it was obligatory on the part of the authority to conduct the departmental inquiry in complete compliance with principles of natural justice. Having not done so, the orders of penalty deserves to be quashed.
3.7. Learned advocate Mr. Clerk has further submitted that the appellate authority has also not properly examined the grievance of the petitioner from all the aforesaid aspects and has in a brief manner discarded the stand and rejected the appeal, which in respectful submission of Mr. Clerk is nothing but a clear case of casual exercise of powers. Hence, the order of penalty as well as the order passed by the appellate authority deserves to be quashed. Page 15 of 41 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 15:53:16 IST 2022 C/SCA/5216/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2022 3.8. Learned advocate Mr. Clerk has submitted that apart from all these issues, further fact ought to have been gone into by the appellate authority that the petitioner was working as a Clerk in Mugalisar Surat Branch from where she was promoted and transferred as JMG Scale-I at Halar Road Valsad Branch. The petitioner therefore, was not competent to perform the duty of Scale
-II Manager which is a higher in rank than JMG Scale-I and at the relevant point of time, the Bank witness Mr. P.C. Koli was working as Scale-II Manager at the said branch and was also acting as Scale-III (Sr. Manager as well). All functions of Scale-II officer also called second in command, also to be performed by Mr. Koli along with his duties and function of Scale-III Sr. Manager position and as such, denying the signature on financial statement namely, balance sheet with such incorrect rate of interest cannot be construed as misconduct as it was not her duty to sign such documents. The said functions or duties were that of Scale-II Manager posts which was held by said Mr. P.C. Koli. On the contrary, it was bounden duty of Mr. P.C. Koli to see that appropriate rate of interest to be properly charged in the loan account as per the instruction of Head Office/Regional Office, but then with a view to somehow fix the petitioner, she was instructed by the Branch Manager who was not competent to permit the petitioner and assigned the duties of ALPM Manager by order dated 28.07.2005. This is serious irregularity Page 16 of 41 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 15:53:16 IST 2022 C/SCA/5216/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2022 committed by Mr. Koli at the relevant point of time since passing such kind of order was outside the purview and authority of Branch Manager and as such, such order dated 28.07.2005 can never be said to be a competent order and based upon that the petitioner could not have been victimized or harassed in the manner in which, she has been.
3.9. Learned advocate Mr. Clerk has then submitted that sanctioning of loan, fixing rate of interest, checking the rate of interest and the checking the repayment of loan amount and recovery thereof, are the duties assigned to Scale-II Manager which posts was held by Mr. P.C. Koli at the relevant point of time at Halar Road Valsad Branch and the petitioner was not in task to sign the balance sheet as on 30.09.2005 and at that point of time, Assistant Manager Mr. P.R. Patel had put the signature on the said balance sheet, but since the petitioner was not supplied with the relevant documents, brief whereof is not available with the petitioner, but in any way, the duty assigned to Scale-II Manager cannot be performed by the petitioner even if some communication in the form of order dated 28.07.2005 was passed by the Branch Manager, who was not having the authority. That being so, the entire exercise against the petitioner is with a view to shield to some officer who is the only responsible for such act. To substantiate this, learned advocate Mr. Page 17 of 41 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 15:53:16 IST 2022 C/SCA/5216/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2022 Clerk has referred to an affidavit-in-rejoinder, a Circular dated 12.03.2005 communicated to the Branch by the Head Office on 16.03.2005 to indicate that Branches were informed about the revision of rate of interest in loan and advances to be made by the Branch. Even when the statutory audit of the Bank was carried out in the Branch at the time of signing the balance sheet as on 31.03.2006, the petitioner informed the said statutory authority that the rate of interest in the loan account was charged less than what is prescribed in the aforesaid circular, but the said audit statutory did not paid any attention in that behalf at that time and as such, the overall circumstances which are reflecting on record would clearly indicate that it is not the responsibility of the petitioner which can lead to an order of penalty against her only.
4. As against this, learned advocate Mr. Pranav Desai appearing on behalf of the respondent - Bank has vehemently opposed the petition by contending that the situation is on the contrary converse. The petitioner almost has admitted the charge of not putting the signature and later on putting signature after making an endorsement and remarks and further fact which is not in dispute is that petitioner was second in command and as such, when there is no valid reason for refusal of putting signature on the financial statement which is crucial, the petitioner has committed serious misconduct which has rightly been dealt with by the respondent Page 18 of 41 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 15:53:16 IST 2022 C/SCA/5216/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2022 Bank. Learned advocate Mr. Desai has submitted that more than sufficient opportunity has been provided to the petitioner and the petitioner was in the habit of dragging the inquiry from the initial stage itself. The first under the grab of seeking various documents time and again and further under the circumstances by projecting issues of husband and as such, every attempt was made by the petitioner to delay the proceedings and to thwart the same. It has been contended by learned advocate Mr. Desai that whenever the documents which were required to be relied upon during the course of inquiry have been submitted and the entire procedure of inquiry was in close conformity with the process of inquiry prescribed under the Regulations and that being so there is hardly any reason for the petitioner to raise grievance about non granting of any opportunity. Learned advocate Mr. Desai has submitted that all documents which were sought by the petitioner, relevance whereof have not been shown or indicated by the petitioner and whatever documents were sought to be relied upon against her, were undisputedly supplied and therefore, there is no question of violation of any principles of natural justice and in absence of any proof of prejudiced to her, the said issue cannot help the petitioner to contend any violation. On the contrary, even during the course of inquiry, the petitioner's adamant approach throughout was noticed by the inquiry officer and the inquiry process has not been co-operated by the petitioner. On Page 19 of 41 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 15:53:16 IST 2022 C/SCA/5216/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2022 the contrary, the loan documents and witnesses which were submitted to the petitioner have also been specifically acknowledged by the petitioner and enough time was granted to meet with. The petitioner sought repeated adjournment under one reason or other and again on 19.02.2007 she showed adamant approach not to co- operate with the inquiry. All documents in origin have been shown to the petitioner on 20.02.2007 and as such, there is no question of violation of principles of natural justice. On the contrary, by referring to page 220 and 225 of petition compilation, learned advocate Mr. Desai has submitted that seven witnesses have been examined and only thereafter the petitioner was asked to submit her written brief and that being so, it is not correct on the part of the petitioner to contend that the inquiry was left halfway, concluded hurriedly and without allowing her to cross-examine the Management witnesses. On the contrary, at every stage the petitioner was given an opportunity to defend herself and only thereafter, inquiry has been concluded.
4.1. Learned advocate Mr. Desai has submitted that a detailed order has been passed by the disciplinary authority, pointing out that clearly that misconduct has been established during the course of inquiry and there are specific findings arrived at by the disciplinary authority based upon the relevant material on record and as such, Page 20 of 41 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 15:53:16 IST 2022 C/SCA/5216/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2022 the conclusion arrived at against the petitioner is just and proper, which may not be substituted in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction, more particularly, when the appellate authority has also examined at length.
4.2. Learned advocate Mr. Desai has therefore submitted that the entire inquiry proceeded against her is in close conformity with the Rules and Regulations applicable to it and all throughout the petitioner has never raised such kind of issues that no procedure is observed by the respondent authority during the course of inquiry. On the contrary, such kind of contention has never been raised by the petitioner and as such, the question of arriving at finding on that is out of place and as such, it is not open for the petitioner to seek equitable jurisdiction of this Court against concurrent findings of fact by both the authorities of respondent Bank. To strengthen his submission, learned advocate Mr. Desai has then relied upon few decisions delivered by the Apex Court as well as by this Court which are as under :-
"(1) In the case of K.L. Tripathi v. State Bank of India & Ors., reported in AIR 1984 SC 273.
(2) In the case of The Chairman, State Bank of India & Ors., v. M. J. James reported in 2021 (4) SCT 742 (SC).
(paragraphs 25, 26 and 28).
(3) In the case of State Bank of Patiala & Ors., v. S.K. Sharma reported in AIR 1996 SC 1669.
Page 21 of 41 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 15:53:16 IST 2022 C/SCA/5216/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2022 (4) In the case of Mansukhlal K. Bhalala v. Bank of India & Ors., reported in 2006 GLH 235.
(5) Civil Appeal No. 11357/ 1978 decided on 04.10.1983. 4.3. After pointing out these authorities, learned advocate Mr. Desai has submitted that principles of natural justice is depending upon case to case basis and there is no straight jacket formula allowing the principles of natural justice to whittle down the well reasoned order by the authority duly passed upon careful analysis of material on record. Learned advocate Mr. Desai has further submitted that the petitioner has taken VRS from the service and availed all the benefits and as such, there is no prejudice even monetarily as as been tried to be projected. Hence, a request is made by learned advocate Mr. Desai to dismiss the petition.
5. In re-joinder to this, learned advocate Mr. Clerk has submitted that relevance of the documents was also shown by the petitioner specifically on 21.02.2007 and it is surprisingly to note that on 20.02.2007 Presenting Officer examined the management witnesses and then instructed to give written brief and this direction to tender written brief without permitting the petitioner to cross-examine which itself is violative of the principles of natural justice. Since this was realized by the respondent authority during the course of inquiry, then they re-started examination of witnesses on 26.03.2007 Page 22 of 41 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 15:53:16 IST 2022 C/SCA/5216/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2022 and fixed later date of inquiry on 29.03.2007 and learned advocate Mr. Clerk than reiterated that such examination of crucial witness Mr. Koli was left halfway on 31.03.2007 and unilaterally summed up the inquiry and as such, in sum and substance, inquiry was concluded against the petitioner in which crucial witness has not remained present nor was permitted to be cross-examined in full and no sufficient time was given and all documents which were demanded specifically have not been supplied and as such, according to Mr. Clerk, the whole inquiry got vitiated, which deserves to be corrected by quashing and setting aside the impugned orders. It is submitted that there was no adamant approach of the petitioner anywhere and during her service for over 29 years and as such, the situation which is tried to be shown of the petitioner that she is cantankerous lady, is thoroughly misconceived and is nothing but an after thought just to divert the attention of the Court from the core issue. As a result of this, the petition deserves to be allowed.
6. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties and having gone through the material on record, in the context of the submissions made by both the sides, following are the circumstances which are not possible to be ignored by the Court while coming to the ultimate conclusion.
Page 23 of 41 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 15:53:16 IST 2022 C/SCA/5216/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2022 6.1. It appears that the allegations which are basically levelled against the petitioner are that the petitioner refused to sign the relevant financial statements as on 31.03.2006 which tantamounts to denied the instructions of the Branch Manger. Allegation 1 reflecting in the charge memo is that petitioner on 09.04.2006 refused to sign BS-14 and BS-20 statements, despite she was asked in the presence of statutory auditor. Allegation 2 is that on the next date i.e. 10.04.2006 also, she again refused to sign BS-13, however, later on, she has put the signature on the statements i.e. BS-13, BS- 14, BS-20 as on 31.03.2006 with remark that interest has not been charged correctly and then the said circumstance appears to be the subject matter of departmental inquiry. Allegation 3 also relates to non signing of half yearly closing statements namely BS-5, BS-6, BS- 21, BS-21A and BS-28 for the half year ending on 30.09.2005. Allegation 4 also relates to not carrying out instructions contained in Office Order dated 30.09.2005 for rectification of irregularity pointed out by the Inspecting Officer in Audit Report dated 05.08.2005. During the course of inquiry, it was observed that the petitioner failed to maintain good conduct and discipline and to show courtesy towards the higher authorities, which is violative of Regulation 3 of the UCO Bank Officers Conduct and Discipline & Appeal Regulations, 1976 and it has further been proved that she failed to discharge her duties with due diligence, devotion which is in violation of Regulation Page 24 of 41 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 15:53:16 IST 2022 C/SCA/5216/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2022 3 of UCO Bank Officers Conduct and Discipline & Appeal Regulations, 1976 and as such, the disciplinary authority being Deputy General Manager imposed the punishment on 27.04.2007. 6.2. It further appears that this punishment of disciplinary authority carried further before the appellate authority of the respondent - Bank by way of an appeal, raising several contentions with the support of the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and a request was made specifically to grant an opportunity of personal hearing before the appeal gets decided. The said appeal was dealt with by an appellate authority and in exercise of powers conferred by Regulation 17 of UCO Bank Officers Conduct and Discipline & Appeal Regulations, 1976 the penalty inflicted upon the petitioner vide order dated 27.04.2007 came to be confirmed and appeal was dismissed. While dismissing the appeal, the appellate authority has concluded that the punishment is commensurate with gravity of misconduct committed by the petitioner. From the pleadings, it appears that a stand is taken by the respondent - Bank that the petitioner was second in common in the Branch and as such, even if there is any irregularity in the balance sheet, it was her duty being second in command at the Branch level to put the signature, of-course said aspect is disputed by petitioner. Non signing of the balance sheet has an effect of non submission of balance sheet signed by two officers of Page 25 of 41 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 15:53:16 IST 2022 C/SCA/5216/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2022 the Branch one by the head i.e. Branch Manager and another second in charge of the Branch before the Controlling Officer, i.e. Zonal Office at Ahmedabad.
6.3. From the record, it appears that the departmental inquiry which was conducted against the petitioner was in a hot and hurried manner, and the undisputed chronology of events stated on oath by the petitioner makes it clear "that when on 13.01.2007 the departmental inquiry commenced at Halar Road Valsad Branch, was adjourned after preliminary discussion and then on 01.02.2007, the petitioner had asked for adjournment since her husband had undergone angiography and was actually in hospital. Then next date was given of 08.02.007, and since the husband of the petitioner had an appointment of Cardiologist, time was sought by the petitioner. Fourth hearing took place on 19.02.2007 wherein the Bank gave a list of management witnesses and as such, for preparation, time was sought so as to enable her to cross-examine, but no adjournment was granted nor the Bank examined any witnesses."
6.4. During the course of inquiry, the petitioner was asked to give her written brief on 20.02.2007 which was submitted on the next date i.e. on 21.02.2007. Then on 10.03.2007, the petitioner received written arguments from the Presenting Officer and towards the Page 26 of 41 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 15:53:16 IST 2022 C/SCA/5216/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2022 same, the petitioner tendered her reply on 12.03.2007. Thereafter, from 29.03.2007 to 31.03.2007, the departmental inquiry was re- opened and it is clearly stated that prior to 29.03.2007, the Bank did not examine any of the witnesses, as per the list of management witnesses and thereafter, between 29.03.2007 to 31.03.2007 within three days only suddenly the bank examined seven witnesses. The main witness was Mr. P.C. Koli the then Branch Manager and this witness was in the process of cross-examination by the petitioner on 30.03.2007, cross-examination on that day of this management witness, left incomplete and as such, the proceedings were adjourned to the very next date i.e. on 31.03.2007. The said witness Mr. P.C. Koli did not remained present on that day, who was in the midst of cross-examination and the petitioner was asked to cross-examine other witnesses without the said cross-examination being completed, and later on the said management witness who was at Branch where the petitioner was working did not allowed his cross-examination to be completed and surprisingly, the inquiry officer closed the cross- examination of the witnesses and straightway asked the petitioner to submit written brief which was submitted on 01.04.2007 and then suddenly penalty order came to be passed on 30.04.2007 reducing the petitioner to her basic pay by four stages for a period of four years. This chronology of events is reflecting from the inquiry papers brought on record from the Minutes of Inquiry placed from page 227 Page 27 of 41 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 15:53:16 IST 2022 C/SCA/5216/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2022 of the petition compilation. The Minutes of Inquiry are also indicating that the petitioner went on demanding the documents, but appears to have not been responded well and there appears to be a verbal spat at the relevant point of time between Mr. P.C. Koli, the then Branch Manager. This fact has remained uncontroverted and it is a clear case of the petitioner that the aforesaid aspect has got adversely affected the right of her effective defence, which aspect though pointed out, has not been examined by the appellate authority and as such, a grievance which is raised that the orders passed against the petitioner suffers from vice of non application of mind. Closure of inquiry in such a harried manner which is indicating from the inquiry papers is not in consonance with the close conformity with the principles of natural justice and that having not been properly examined by the appellate authority, a grievance which is raised by the petitioner appears to be justified.
6.5. It is noticed from the record that grounds raised in the appeal are exhaustive, and ought to have been dealt with in their proper perspective. Thus, the order passed by the appellate authority though apparently looked to be a detailed one, but the crucial contentions which have been raised as stated, have not been properly considered in the findings which have been arrived at by the appellate authority. The appellate authority basically proceeded on Page 28 of 41 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 15:53:16 IST 2022 C/SCA/5216/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2022 the footing that there is a substantial compliance of principles of natural justice and as such, no interference deserves and further it has been held that the Regulations are not permitting for personal hearing and as such, though demanded the same was well within the domain of appellate authority not to extend such. Thus, prima facie it appears to this Court that the appeal being right of a delinquent, ought to have been entertained in proper perspective after coming to the conclusion on each of the contentions raised in it. 6.5. It is observed also from page 155 of the appeal memo that a clear request is made to extend an opportunity of personal hearing, but undisputedly, the same has not been extended. Hence, to that extent, the Court see some force in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
6.6. Yet another issue which has been specifically brought before the Court is that as per the Rules and Regulations only Scale -II officer can be designated as a Manager and Scale-I officer cannot be assigned the work of a Manager. However, according to the petitioner, she was unlawfully designated as ALPM Manager without the consent from Regional Office, Ahmedabad by the Branch Manager Mr. P.C. Koli by issuing Office Order dated 28.07.2005 and at that time, the said Branch Manager Mr. P.C. Koli was present on Page 29 of 41 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 15:53:16 IST 2022 C/SCA/5216/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2022 duty as Scale-II officer and as such, in fact said Mr. Koli was required to act as and was required to give effect of the change of rate of interest linked with BPLR which is being declared by the Regional Office/Head Office from time to time and since said Mr. P.C. Koli failed to perform his duty with a view to shield his lapses and negligence had unauthorizedly designated the petitioner as ALPM Manager vide Office Order dated 28.07.2005. At that time, he was not even authorized to pass such order. Now this contention though specifically raised, appears that the same has also not been properly construed and dealt with by the appellate authority, as is visible from the order impugned.
6.7. In the pleadings, the petitioner has emphatically made out this contention which was also raised during the course of appeal as well and as such, the circumstances which are visible is that the said Branch Manager Mr. P.C. Koli had unauthorizedly designated the petitioner as ALPM Manager, compelled her to put signature on the balance sheet, which according to the petitioner did not reflect the correct rate of interest as per the guidelines of Head Office of the respondent Bank and said Mr. P.C. Koli was not even allowed to be fully cross-examined by the petitioner during the course of departmental inquiry as undisputedly, his cross-examination remained incomplete and the petitioner further was asked to go Page 30 of 41 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 15:53:16 IST 2022 C/SCA/5216/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2022 ahead with the other witnesses for cross-examination and as such, an impression is successfully created by the petitioner that the right to make effective representation or raising contention, is curtailed or adversely affected to some extent which aspect has not been gone into at all by the appellate authority.
6.8. This along with other contentions as raised in the appeal have not been properly examined at length and hence in considered opinion of this Court, when the Regulations are permitting and creating statutory appeal forum, the appellate authority is under an obligation to examine at length instead of routinely confirming with the conclusion of the disciplinary authority.
6.9. Additionally, the Court see from the pleadings that specific personal hearing request was made in the appeal which has undisputedly not been provided under the guise that Regulation do not permit such extension of opportunity and as such, though specifically prayed, the said right is also denied and as such, on overall exercise of appellate authority, the discussion is found as erroneous and perverse and to that extent the petitioner has made out a case to call for an interference.
7. While coming to this conclusion, the following are the Page 31 of 41 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 15:53:16 IST 2022 C/SCA/5216/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2022 observations contained in the decisions delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court since found relevant, the Court deems it proper to reproduce the same hereunder :-
7.1. In the case of Satya Narain Gupta v. UCO Bank, reported in 2004 LAB I.C. 1011, Rajasthan High Court on the basis of the Regulations of the Bank has touched the aspect of granting an opportunity to re-open the case and also referred to a decision delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Mishra reported in (1998) 7 SCC 84, in which it has been observed that the principles of natural justice have to be read in Regulations and as such, even if Regulations do not permit a right of hearing, but once it has been asked for specifically, same ought not to have been denied.
7.1.1. Time and again, the Courts have also propounded that though Rules may permit to take action without notice or hearing, yet the principle of natural justice should be read into with such Rules and action cannot be without any notice or hearing. Such proposition is well defined by the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Saij Gram Panchayat v. State of Gujarat & Ors., reported in (1999) 2 SCC 366 as well as the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Piara Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors., reported in (2000) Page 32 of 41 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 15:53:16 IST 2022 C/SCA/5216/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2022 5 SCC 765.
7.2. Further, the Bank's Regulations has set-out a clear procedure for imposition of major penalty. In Regulation 6, sub-Regulation (14) of UCO Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976, it has been stipulated that before closing of the case in respect of the charges, the inquiry authority may in its discretion even allow the Presenting Officer to produce the evidence, not included in the charge sheet and may allow even to recall or re- examine any witnesses. There is a corresponding right given to the officer employee to avail an opportunity. Sub-Regulation (18) of the said Regulations which is also clearly providing an opportunity to give written briefs after completion of production of evidence within a period of 15 days or from the date of completion of the production of evidence and as such, sufficient opportunity of a reasonable period is clearly provided in the Regulations itself, whereas, from page 227
- 243 of the petition compilation, consisting of Minutes of Inquiry, it appears that the inquiry officer has insisted to submit written brief within two days only which was repeatedly requested by the petitioner that same may not be possible still the petitioner was directed to adhere the timings strictly and the proceedings came to be concluded on 31.03.2007 at 3:10 pm itself. This is appearing to be in conflict with the opportunity clause referred to above and as such, Page 33 of 41 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 15:53:16 IST 2022 C/SCA/5216/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2022 also all these aspects ought to have been gone into by the appellate authority while dealing with the appeal and disposing of the same. That having not done, in the considered opinion of this Court, the appellate authority fell in error in exercising the discretion. 7.3. At this stage, the Court is reminded of catena of decisions by virtue of which a proposition is carved out that appeal proceedings are to be dealt with and disposed of not in a routine manner but by arriving at a detail conclusion. The following are the decisions which have clearly propounded on the aforesaid issues which the Court would like to reproduce hereunder :-
(i) In the case of Mayurbhai Kantibhai Gohil v. State of Gujarat & Anr., reported in 2015 (1) GLR 894.
"11. It is well settled that while granting and/or refusing interim order, the Court has to assign briefly some reason. The Apex Court in the case of Oryx Fisheries Private Limited v. Union of India and others, (2010) 13 SCC 427 observed in paragraph 40 as under :-
"40. In M/s Kranti Associates (supra), this Court after considering various judgments formulated certain principles in para 51 of the judgment which are set out below :-
(a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.
(b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions.
(c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice Page 34 of 41 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 15:53:16 IST 2022 C/SCA/5216/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2022 must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well.
(d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasijudicial or even administrative power.
(e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations.
(f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies.
(g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior Courts.
(h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the life blood of judicial decision making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice.
(i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system.
(j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency.
(k) If a Judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism.Page 35 of 41 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 15:53:16 IST 2022
C/SCA/5216/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2022
(l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or `rubber-stamp reasons' is not to be equated with a valid decision making process.
(m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision making not only makes the judges and decision makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor (1987) 100 Harward Law Review 731-737).
(n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See (1994) 19 EHRR 553, at 562 para 29 and Anya vs. University of Oxford, 2001 EWCA Civ 405, wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of European Convention of Human Rights which requires, "adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions".
(o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "Due Process".
(ii) In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax-1 v.
Rashtradoot (HUF) reported in (2019) 5 SCC 149. Relevant observations contained in paragraph 13 and 14 reads thus:-
'13. This Court has consistently laid emphasis that every order/judgment, which decides the lis between the parties, must contain the reason(s)/ground(s) for arriving at a particular conclusion. Indeed, what is decisive for deciding the case is not the conclusion alone but the reason(s)/ground(s) assigned in support of such conclusion, which results in reaching to such conclusion.
14. In order to decide as to whether the impugned order Page 36 of 41 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 15:53:16 IST 2022 C/SCA/5216/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2022 is legally sustainable or not, the appellate court is entitled to know as to what impelled the court below to pass such order in favour of one party and against the aggrieved party. We find that this requirement is missing in the impugned order of this case and hence the interference is called for. (See State of Maharashtra v.
Vithal Rao Pritirao Chwan, Jawahar Lal Singh v. Naresh Singh, State of U.P. v. Battan, Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar and State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar.)"
(iii) In the case of Municipal Board, Sumerpur v.
Kundanmal & Ors., reported in (2017) 13 SCC 606 the relevant observations contained in paragraph 9 reads thus:
"9. In our considered view, in order to appreciate the factual and legal controversy involved in the lis, the least which is expected of is that the order which decides the lis between the parties should contain the brief facts involved in the case, the grounds on which the action is impugned, the stand of the parties defending the action, the submissions of the parties in support of their stand, legal provisions, if any, applicable to the controversy involved in the lis, and lastly, the brief reasons as to why the case of one party deserves acceptance or rejection, as the case may be."
8. In view of the overall consideration of material on record which lead to conclusion that though as many as 15 decisions have been cited before the appellate authority, none of them have been dealt with or discussed as it clearly appears from the order passed by the appellate authority and as such, the conclusion arrived at by the appellate authority is in ignorance of material on record and non consideration thereof would lead to perversity which has crept in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. What is perversity has been time and again propounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court which indicates Page 37 of 41 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 15:53:16 IST 2022 C/SCA/5216/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2022 that non consideration of material also amounts to perversity. The following are the observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Prem Kumar v. State of Punjab and Others reported in (2013) 14 SCC 653, which reads thus:
"15 .In Excise & Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority v. Gopi Nath & Sons this Court held that : (SCC p. 317, para 7) "7..... if a finding of fact is arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant material or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality incurring the blame of being perverse, then, the finding is rendered infirm in law."
19. This Court in Satyavir Singh v. State of U.P. held :(SCC p. 183, para 21) "21..... 'Perverse' was stated to be behaviour which most of the people would take as wrong, unacceptable, unreasonable and a 'perverse' verdict may probably defined as one that is not only against the weight of the evidence but is altogether against the evidence. Besides, a finding being 'perverse', it could also suffer from the infirmity of distorted conclusions and glaring mistakes."
9. It further appears that the petitioner has put in almost unblemished 29 years service track record at various branches and it is also not in dispute that prior to this episode there is any case of complaint anywhere against the petitioner. Further, it appears that initially the financial statements which have not been signed under the strong belief that correct rate of interest was not applied but then upon instructions of office bearers, a signature is already put in, which fact is also not in dispute. Further, the allegations which have Page 38 of 41 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 15:53:16 IST 2022 C/SCA/5216/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2022 been levelled are not touching to her integrity or loyalty to the services to respondent Bank nor there are any allegations relating to misappropriation of embezzlement of funds in any manner and as such to that extent, the charge which has been levelled is not that much grievous which may visit such kind of penalty and that too when consideration of relevant material and the stand taken by the petitioner. Hence, in view of this peculiar background of fact, the Court is of the opinion that the appellate authority is required to re- look to the appeal and the contentions contained therein afresh and shall pass a fresh order.
9.1. This Court would have interfered with the punishment aspect on the aforesaid background of fact, but in view of the settled proposition of law propounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court on exercise of discretion in extra ordinary jurisdiction, the Court would like to leave it open for the disciplinary authority to inflict reasonable appropriate and just punishment as it is exclusive domain of the disciplinary authority. Following observations contained in para 19.4 of the decision delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Lucknow Kshetriya Gramin Bank and Another Vs. Rajendra Singh reported in (2013) 12 SCC 372, read as under:-
"19.4.Even in such a case when the punishment is set aside as shockingly disproportionate to the nature of charges Page 39 of 41 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 15:53:16 IST 2022 C/SCA/5216/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2022 framed against the delinquent employee, the appropriate course of action is to remit the matter back to the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority with direction to pass appropriate order of penalty. The Court by itself cannot mandate as to what should be the penalty in such a case."
10. However, at this stage, the Court would like to express an opinion that even after re-examination, if the appellate authority comes to the conclusion that the punishment does not deserves to be altered, then in that case, while taking a fresh decision no punishment be enhanced beyond imposed under the impugned order.
11. Hence, in view of the overall consideration of the material on record and in view of the fact that the appellate authority's decision is laconic in nature and the order of punishment deserves to be re- looked, the Court is inclined to remand back the matter to the appellate authority for taking a fresh decision after re-examining the circumstances prevailing on record at length. The Court is inclined to remand the matter back precisely in view of the fact that the petitioner has already taken VRS and availed all due benefits and as such, no much prejudice is likely to cause to the petitioner and as such, the following order is passed which would meet the ends of justice in the considered opinion of this Court.
(i) The impugned order dated 03.10.2007 passed by the appellate authority is hereby quashed and set aside with a consequential direction that the appeal filed by the petitioner Page 40 of 41 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 15:53:16 IST 2022 C/SCA/5216/2008 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 29/04/2022 be re-examined in light of the relevant material on record and after re-examining, a fresh order of punishment shall be passed by the appellate authority.
(ii) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merit on any of the contentions since the appellate authority is required to re-look the said issues, but the Court is clarifying that while examining the appeal and even after dealing with the contentions, if the appellate authority is not inclined to consider, no punishment in excess to what has been imposed upon be imposed.
(iii) Since the issue relates to an incident of the year 2007 and considering the lapse of time, it is directed that the appellate authority shall re-examine the appeal and shall pass a fresh order within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of writ of this Court. The petitioner is directed to co- operate with the early disposal of the appeal.
12. With this observation, the petition stands partly allowed. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs.
Direct Service is permitted.
sd/-
(ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI, J) phalguni Page 41 of 41 Downloaded on : Sat Dec 24 15:53:16 IST 2022