Bombay High Court
Jaisingh Chauhan vs Punjab National Bank & Ors on 8 January, 2019
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2019 BOM 897
Author: Sandeep K. Shinde
Bench: A.S. Oka, Sandeep K. Shinde
Rane 1/9 WP-2066-1996
8.1.2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2066 OF 1996
Jaisingh Chauhan s/o. Basantlal,
Adult, Indian Inhabitant,
residing at E-204, Shrinath
Complex, next to Petrol Pump,
Meera-Bhayandar Road, Bhayandar
(East), District-Thane-401 105 ....Petitioner
V/s.
1. Punjab National Bank,
through the Chairman and
Managing Director, having his
Office at 7, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi-110 066.
2. The General Manager,
(Personnel), Punjab National
Bank, having his office at
7, Bhikaji Cama Place,
New Delhi-110 066.
3. Zonal Manager (Western Zone),
Punjab National Bank,
Zonal Office, Dalamal House,
11th Floor, Bajaj Road,
Nariman Point,
Bombay-400 021.
4. Chief Manager, Punjab
National Bank, Sector-I,
Vashi, New Bombay-400 703. ....Respondents
::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 10/01/2019 22:41:56 :::
Rane 2/9 WP-2066-1996
8.1.2019
*****
Mr. P.M. Mokashi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Anand R. Pai I/by. Mr. Haresh Mehta & Co., Advocate for
the respondent.
CORAM : A.S. OKA, &
SANDEEP K. SHINDE, JJ.
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : 13TH DECEMBER, 2018.
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : 8TH JANUARY, 2019.
JUDGMENT (PER : SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J) :
1. Rule was issued on 22nd October, 1996 and the respondent-Bank was directed to permit the petitioner to resume duty at Vashi to the reverted post.
2. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Counsel for the respondents.
3. The issue in this petition is whether the petitioner was afforded opportunity to defend the charges levelled against him in the departmental enquiry and before imposing penalty of reversion to lower post from JMG Scale-I to clerical post.
::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 10/01/2019 22:41:56 :::
Rane 3/9 WP-2066-1996
8.1.2019
4. Facts of the Case :
. The petitioner was served with the chargesheet dated
20th June, 1991 for the lapses committed by him while working at Sonepat, Haryana in erstwhile New Bank of India under New Bank of India Officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1977. Subsequently, enquiry was conducted under Punjab National Bank Officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1977 due to merger. The petitioner was thereafter promoted as an Officer in Junior Management Grade and posted at Rooiwala Branch in Amritsar, District-Punjab. At the request of the petitioner, he was transferred to Gauhati. The petitioner had received a letter dated 5th January, 1993 from the Enquiry Officer stating that till further notice, enquiry is being kept in abeyance. The said letter is at Exhibit-W to the petition. In April, 1993 he was transferred from Gauhati to New Delhi. However, he was not allowed to join at New Delhi and thus he had approached the Gauhati High Court. Be that as it may, on 10th September, 1993 the petitioner was transferred to Bombay at Vashi Branch and he reported for duty on 28 th ::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 10/01/2019 22:41:56 ::: Rane 4/9 WP-2066-1996 8.1.2019 September, 1993. That from 11th February, 1994 till 16th August, 1995 he was on leave due to sickness. It may be stated that, after reporting at Vashi Branch on 31 st December, 1993 the petitioner had applied for availing travelling allowance by submitting particulars of his permanent and local address for communication. The said particulars are at page-154. It shows the petitioner had disclosed his (i) permanent address as; 430, Sector-14, Sonepat, and (ii) Local Address as; 23(4), Lokhandwala Complex, Andheri (West), Bombay.
5. It is the petitioner's case that, the departmental enquiry was concluded and penalty was imposed without notice to him. As against this, it is the respondent's case that, notices were issued and served on 19th December, 1994, 5th January, 1995 and 12th January, 1995, however, the petitioner did not respond and therefore departmental enquiry was proceeded in his absence.
6. We have perused the aforesaid notices. These notices were sent at Bhagatpura, Sonepat, Haryana. It is ::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 10/01/2019 22:41:56 ::: Rane 5/9 WP-2066-1996 8.1.2019 the petitioner's case that these notices were sent at incorrect address, intentionally, to keep the petitioner away from the departmental enquiry. It is his case that the Bank was aware of his correct address which was 430, Sector-14, Sonepat. To substantiate his argument, the learned Counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to identity card issued by the Vashi Branch in October, 1993. This identity card shows petitioner's local address at Lokhandwala Complex, Andheri (West), Bombay-400 058. He has invited our attention to a document at page-154 whereby he had claimed travelling allowance on his transfer to Mumbai. This document also shows his address as 430, Sector-14, Sonepat (as the permanent address) and Lokhandwala Complex, Andheri (West), Bombay-400 058. Yet another document is a communication dated 10 th August, 1994 by the respondent-Bank at Vashi addressed to the petitioner at his correct address i.e. 430, Sector-14, Sonepat, Haryana. The next document is at page-158 i.e. identity card of the petitioner issued by the respondent-Bank when he was posted at Gauhati inter-alia showing 430, Sector-14, Sonepat as his residential address.
::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 10/01/2019 22:41:56 :::
Rane 6/9 WP-2066-1996
8.1.2019
7. The aforesaid documentary evidence placed on record by the petitioner clearly establishes the fact that the respondents were aware of the petitioner's correct address i.e. 430, Sector-14, Sonepat which he had disclosed to the respondents not only at Vashi Branch but since he was posted at Sonepat. It also establishes a fact that the petitioner had disclosed and intimated the respondents local address as could be seen from the identity card issued by the respondent-Bank in October, 1993. Therefore, the bank's contention that, notices were sent to the petitioner on 19th December, 1994, 5th January, 1995 and again on 12 th January, 1995 at correct address cannot be accepted. These three notices were sent at the House near Canal Ghoda, Bhagatpura, Sonepat and not at 430, Sector-14, Sonepat, Haryana. Obviously, these notices were not received by the petitioner. Be that as it may, in August, 1994, a notice was sent by the respondents to the petitioners at correct address i.e. 430, Sector-14, Sonepat, Haryana but notices dated 19th December, 1994 and 5th January, 1995 were sent at some other address. The only ::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 10/01/2019 22:41:56 ::: Rane 7/9 WP-2066-1996 8.1.2019 inference which can be drawn is that the respondents had sent the notices at incorrect address which prevented the petitioner from contesting the departmental proceedings.
8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to a letter dated 10 th January, 1994 addressed by the Chief Manager, Vashi Branch to the Enquiry Officer informing that the petitioner was absent from the duty from 11th February, 1994 and his whereabouts were not known. This is again a deliberate attempt on the part of the Bank to keep the petitioner away from the departmental proceedings. Infact, the same Branch had issued an identity card to the petitioner disclosing his complete local address of Mumbai. In the given circumstances, we hold that the Bank had issued notices to the petitioner at the incorrect address which prevented the petitioner from contesting the departmental enquiry.
9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has invited our attention to the impugned order dated 4 th July, 1995 passed by the Zonal Manager, Western Zone (Disciplinary ::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 10/01/2019 22:41:56 ::: Rane 8/9 WP-2066-1996 8.1.2019 Authority) and order dated 7th May, 1996 passed by the General Manager (Appellate Authority). The Appellate Authority while dismissing the Appeal of the petitioner has held that, all communications/notices were sent on his permanent address on the record of the Bank. The Appellate Authority relied on two notices dated 19 th December, 1994 and 5th January, 1995. We have held that these notices were sent at the incorrect address.
10. That for the reasons stated hereinabove, we hold that the departmental enquiry was concluded without proper notice to the petitioner in breach of the principles of natural justice and therefore the order dated 4 th July, 1995 passed by the Disciplinary Authority, as well as, the order dated 7th May, 1996 passed by the Appellate Authority stands vitiated for not affording the opportunity to the petitioner before concluding the departmental enquiry and imposing the major penalty of reverting him to the lower post from JMG Scale-I to the clerical cadre.
11. Hence, we pass the following order :
::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 10/01/2019 22:41:56 :::
Rane 9/9 WP-2066-1996 8.1.2019
(i) The order dated 4th July, 1995 passed by the Disciplinary Authority which is at Exhibit-R to the petition and the order dated 7th May, 1996 passed by the Appellate Authority which is at Exhibit-Y to the petition, are hereby quashed and set aside.
(ii) The respondents are directed to commence the enquiry afresh by affording opportunity to the petitioner and conclude the enquiry as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months.
(iii) The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms and Rule is disposed of accordingly.
(SANDEEP K. SHINDE, J) (A.S. OKA, J)
::: Uploaded on - 08/01/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 10/01/2019 22:41:56 :::