JUDGMENT S.K. Singh, J.
1. By means of this writ petition, challenge is to the orders passed by Senior Regional Manager, Kanpur Region, Punjab National Bank (respondent no. 3) dated 30.1.2001 (Annexure-15 to the writ petition) and the appellate order dated 31.7.2001 passed by Zonal Manager, East U.P. Zone, Punjab National Bank, respondent No. 2 (Annexure-17 to the writ petition) with the prayer for reinstatement of the petitioner with all consequential benefits.
2. The facts for the purposes of decision of the case runs in a narrow compass which can be summarised as thus.
3. The petitioner having been recruited in the service of Punjab National Bank (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) in the year 1986, was selected by the Banking Services Recruitment Board for being appointed as clerk-cum-cashier and was posted in the District Kanpur, On 25.4.1998, petitioner was told by the Manager that there was some discrepancy of some amount attributable to the petitioner and the petitioner should deposit the same, upon which, the petitioner without admitting his guilt, has deposited an amount of Rs. 1,24,000 in the bank on 25.4.1998, itself and an amount of Rs. 38,000 on 20.8.1998. On 25.4.1998, itself, the officiating Branch Manager passed an order of suspension. No departmental proceeding was set in motion or was contemplated and it is after about 22 months of the order of suspension, charge-sheet was served on the petitioner on 12.2.2000. Along with charge-sheet, neither any witnesses were cited nor any document in support of the charges were supplied. It is thereafter, departmental enquiry started in respect to the charge-sheet as issued on 12.2.2000 and by letter dated 29.8.2000, the petitioner was asked to attend the enquiry. The date of enquiry was fixed for 9.9.2000 which was deferred and thereafter, 13.10.2000 was fixed. On that date, it appears that the petitioner voluntarily accepted his guilt and after assuring his good and honest behaviour, made a request to the disciplinary authority through the enquiry officer that his case may be decided under para 19.12 (e) of the Bipartite Settlement. The admission by petitioner and the statement of the presenting officer in the proceeding before the enquiry officer as referred in the proceeding dated 13.10.2000 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition) will be useful to be referred hereinbelow :
"I voluntary accept my guilt. I have deposited the money involved in the matter. For this act, I am repenting from the bottom of my heart and henceforth I assure my good and honest behaviour in discharging my duties. Since Bank has not suffered any financial toss so I want be request DA through you that my case should be decided under para 19.12(e) of the Bipartite Settlement. I have big family to support so I further request you to kindly concede my request so that my family may not be ruined during these hard days. I hope that your good self will give me an occasion to prove my work honestly.
EO to PO Do you want to say anything in the matter.
PO to EO Since the employee has already accepted the charges and requested to deal his case under para 19.12 (e) of the BPS. I do not want to present the case any further."
4. In view of the aforesaid admission of the petitioner, the enquiry officer with the report that the petitioner has admitted the charges concluded the enquiry and sent the matter to the disciplinary authority for considering the quantum of punishment. Thereafter on 13.11.2000, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice by the disciplinary authority and then on 20.12.2000 the petitioner was again issued a show cause notice in respect to the proposed punishment "dismissal without notice". On receipt of the show cause notice with the proposed punishment of dismissal without notice, the petitioner submitted a detail reply on 20.1.2001 (Annexure-14 to the writ petition) in which, It was mentioned that the admission of guilt was linked with request of considering the case of the petitioner under para 19.12 (e) of the Bipartite Settlement. It was stated that in the event, the disciplinary authority is not ready to consider and accept the petitioner's request to deal his case under para 19.12 (e) then the departmental enquiry should proceed and after opportunity to the petitioner, decision in the matter should be taken. The representation of the petitioner dated 20.1.2001 could not succeed and by the order of disciplinary authority dated 30.1.2001 (Annexure-15 to the writ petition), petitioner was dismissed from service against which the matter having been taken by the petitioner to the appellate authority also met the same fate as the appeal was dismissed by order dated 31.7.2001 (Annexure-17 to the writ petition). It is these two orders referred above, i.e., the dismissal of the petitioner from service and its confirmation by the appellate authority which are under challenge before this Court.
5. Arguments were advanced by Sri Tejpal, learned advocate who appeared for the petitioner and Sri K. L. Grover, learned senior advocate assisted by Sri Ramesh Singh, advocate for the Bank. Pleadings as are complete between the parties, have also been examined.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned exercise of dismissal of the petitioner from service, is in gross violation of principles of natural justice besides being illegal. It is argued that the petitioner was given an assurance by the Senior Regional Manager that in the event of admission of charges, the petitioner would not be given harshest punishment and his case will be dealt with under para 19.12 (e), upon which the petitioner admitted his guilt but that was all the time linked with his request to deal the matter under para 19.12 (e) of the settlement. It is submitted that the respondents have only started preliminary enquiry in which also, no evidence whatsoever, i.e,, either oral or documentary was adduced by the respondents and therefore, there was no occasion for the petitioner to have surrendered in the matter and to have accepted the charges for getting the extreme punishment of dismissal. It is argued that on the facts. It cannot be even inferred that the petitioner's admission to the charges was unconditional inasmuch as he has not admitted the charges under bonafide belief of being dealt under para 19.12 (e), as the view is being taken by the respondents. It is pointed out that in the event, the enquiry officer or the disciplinary authority were not to accept the petitioner's offer and they were of the view that the charges against the petitioner are so serious and grave and they are so sure of its proof, the petitioner should have been communicated with a caution that his case will not be dealt under the referred provision of the Bipartite Settlement rather it would be dealt on merits and, therefore, if he intends to participate in the enquiry by leading evidence, he may do so, falling which, the decision will be taken on merits. It is submitted that the respondents having not taken the aforesaid care, they cannot be permitted to pass an order of dismissal without any enquiry in the matter. Learned counsel in support of his submission that the admission which is being relied upon by the respondents should be fair, unambiguous which is not in the present case, the dismissal solely based thereupon cannot be sustained, has placed reliance on the decision in AIR 1971 SC 1542. Two other decisions in 1986 ALJ 157 and 1994 Crl. LJ 375, have also been cited on the aforesaid point. In support of the submission that if the punishment is shockingly disproportionate, this Court may intervene, reliance has been placed on the case in JT 2000 (2) SC 309.
7. Learned counsel for the respondents in response to the aforesaid arguments, submits that once the petitioner has voluntarily admitted his guilt, no further enquiry was required to be conducted/carried out. It is on account of the admission of the petitioner in respect to financial irregularity, it is in the wisdom of the respondents bank, not to keep the petitioner in service, as there is loss of confidence. It is submitted that before start of the enquiry, it was open for the petitioner to have prayed for consideration of his claim under para 19.12 (e) of the Bipartite Settlement and it is only then if the bank decides not to hold an enquiry, matter could have been dealt accordingly but once enquiry proceeded, it is to be finalised either way and therefore. If during course of enquiry, the petitioner has admitted his guilt, on a consideration of entire facts and situation, if the disciplinary authority has rightly taken the decision to remove the petitioner from service to which, no exception can be taken. Learned counsel submits that this Court should not interfere in the quantum of punishment as it is within the zone of consideration of the disciplinary authority. In support of the aforesaid submission, reliance has been placed on a decision in JT 1997 (2) SC 367 and 1999 (2) Bank CLR 368.
8. In the light of the submission referred above as has come from both sides, the matter has been examined.
9. On examination of the matter, it is clear that a charge-sheet dated 12.2.2000 was served on the petitioner pointing out certain lapses on his part, A perusal of the charge-sheet indicates that neither any witness nor any document has been cited along with the charge sheet. It is claimed that discrepancy as is pointed out in the charge-sheet is in respect to the certain lapses which are upto the year 1997 in respect to which on 25.4.1998, on pointing out by the Regional Manager, the petitioner without admitting his guilt has already deposited a sum of Rs. 1,24,000 and Rs. 38,000 and although the petitioner was placed under suspension on 25.4.1998, but thereafter, by Issuing charge-sheet dated 12.2.2000 referred above, proceedings were started. After issuance of the charge sheet, there appears to be a letter dated 29.8.2000 issued by the enquiry officer which states that he has decided to hold preliminary hearing in the case on 9.9.2000 which was thereafter deferred for 13.10.2000. It is the proceeding dated 13.10.2000 which made the whole controversy on, making it bone of contention from both sides. Proceedings dated 13.10.2000 as has been recorded in Annexure-9 to the writ petition has already been referred above. On a plain reading of the admission of the petitioner which is contained in one composite paragraph, the Court feels that it cannot be bifurcated, and separated. The entire paragraph containing the admission of the petitioner has to be read as a whole as that gives reason for admitting the guilt. It is mentioned in the admission of the petitioner that he has a big family to support and his family may be ruined during the hard days and therefore, it was prayed that his requests that the case be decided under para 19.12 (e), may be conceded. Although it will be repetition at this stage, but as the admission of the petitioner dated 13.10.2000, is the bone of contention between the parties, and therefore, it is felt proper that it may be again reproduced here :
"I voluntary accept my guilt. I have deposited the money involved in the matter. For this act, I am repenting from the bottom of my heart and henceforth I assure my good and honest behaviour in discharging my duties. Since Bank has not suffered any financial loss so I want be request DA through you that my case should be decided under para 19.12(e) of the Bipartite Settlement I have big family to support so I further request you to kindly concede my request so that my family may not be ruined during these hard days. I hope that your good self will give me an occasion to prove my work honestly.
EO to PO Do you want to say anything in the matter.
PO to EO Since the employee has already accepted the charges and requested to deal his case under para 19.12 (e) of the BPS. I do not want to present the case any further."
10. After the aforesaid admission on 13.10.2000, the enquiry officer closed the proceedings and by letter dated 28.10.2000, sent the matter to the disciplinary authority for considering the quantum of punishment. It is clearly mentioned by the enquiry officer in his letter dated 20.10.2000 that Sri R.K. Handa, the Presenting Officer has not filed a single document to prove the charges. Admittedly, no oral statement has also come. Thus, it appears to be an admitted situation that neither along with the charge-sheet any document/paper has been cited nor any witness has been named nor during the course of enquiry, any paper whatsoever has been filed or any evidence either in the shape of oral or documentary has been adduced. It is also clear that after service of charge-sheet dated 12.2.2000, which is just a narration of certain lapses by letter dated 29.8.2000. the enquiry officer has informed the petitioner that he has decided to hold preliminary hearing which clearly means that if in the preliminary hearing on the explanation of the petitioner if the enquiry officer is not satisfied, he may proceed with full fledged enquiry. Be as it may, on 13.10.2000, which was deferred date for the preliminary hearing, the petitioner made statement that as the bank has not suffered any financial loss and, therefore, request was made to the disciplinary authority through the enquiry officer that his case be decided under para 19.12 (e) as he has a big family to support. More important thing which is to be noted is that the presenting officer in the proceeding dated 13.10.2000 stated that he does not want to present the case any further as the employee has already "accepted the charges and requested to deal his case under para 19.12 (e)."
11. On screening of the matter, there appears to be no doubt in respect to the conclusion that the admission in respect to the charges by the petitioner was a conditional one and with the hope that his case will be dealt with the provisions of Bipartite Settlement. There appears to be bona fide in the hope/belief of the petitioner in view of the fact that in the year 1998, the entire amount stood deposited and further that at the start of the proceeding when the petitioner met the Senior Regional Manager, then on the facts and circumstances, the latter advised the petitioner that in the event the petitioner admits guilt, his case will be dealt under para 19.12 (e) and he may not be given harshest punishment. Clear statement by the petitioner in para 39 of the writ petition by giving complete detail of the meeting with the Senior Regional Manager, has not been specifically denied by the respondents as is clear from a reading of para 17 of the counter - affidavit.
12. In view of the aforesaid, this Court concludes that the petitioner under a bona fide belief, has made the admission in respect to the charges with the hope of his case to be dealt with under para 19.12(e) of the Bipartite Settlement. Now at this stage, if the contention of the respondents that the petitioner's admission cannot be accepted to be conditional and after start of enquiry proceedings, he has no right to make a prayer for considering his case under para 19.12 (e), even if is accepted for the sake of arguments, even then, on the facts, the Court feels that it was obligatory on the part of the enquiry officer through whom the request was made to the disciplinary authority, to have informed the petitioner either by himself or through the disciplinary authority that either for the reason that the petitioner has clearly admitted his guilt or the enquiry proceeding has already begun his request for dealing the matter under para 19.12 (e) of the Bipartite Settlement cannot be accepted and thus, he is required to join the enquiry proceedings by leading evidence failing which the decision in the matter on merits will be taken. As admittedly, no evidence whatsoever from the side of the respondents has either come nor even it has been referred/cited, it cannot be imagined that, the petitioner has anticipated the proof of the charges warranting major punishment. It appears from the record, that it is just after issuance of the charge-sheet after getting the letter from enquiry officer about preliminary hearing, the petitioner has chosen not to contest the matter apparently on the assurance having been given as detailed in para 13 of the writ petition, to save his family being ruined. The aforesaid fact is also clear from the immediate protest having been lodged by the petitioner to the disciplinary authority on receipt of the letter/show cause notice dated 20.12.2000 in which dismissal was proposed. The petitioner on 20.1.2001 submitted to the disciplinary authority that he admitted the guilt and simultaneously requested to consider the case under para 19.12 (e) and therefore, if the disciplinary authority is proposing capital punishment without giving any due thought to his request, then the departmental enquiry should be continued and opportunity in the matter may be given. The request as made by the petitioner through his reply/representation dated 20.1.2001, pursuant to the notice by the disciplinary authority dated 20.12.2000 will be useful to be referred here :
"With profound sense of hope, I am submitting few lines for your kind consideration. That during the course of departmental enquiry, 1 admitted the guilt and simultaneously requested to consider my case under para 19.12 (e) of the Bipartite Settlement. But your good self, while proposing the capital punishment of "Dismissal without notice" have not given any due thought to my request.
That if you were not ready to consider my case under para 19.12 (e) of the Bipartite Settlement, then it was the demand of the Justice that departmental enquiry should have continued against me. My acceptance of the guilt was very much linked with my above request.
That the enquiry had also been conducted against me in a most perfunctory manner. The Enquiry Officer has also not given his report, rather he had depicted the submissions made by me before him. He even did not ask me, during the course of enquiry, as to whether I am accepting my guilt at my own or under any pulls or pressure. Thus, the report of the enquiry officer is based on conjectures and surmises and not on any legal evidence."
13. The disciplinary authority without assigning any reason whatsoever in respect to the submission of the petitioner rather by making wrong observation to the fact that he has perused the finding of the enquiry officer and the evidence adduced during the course of departmental enquiry and therefore is confirming the proposed punishment of dismissal. The enquiry officer in its letter dated 28.10.2000 (Annexure-10) has clearly mentioned that the presenting officer has not filed/ produced any evidence whatsoever to prove the charges whereas the disciplinary authority in its punishment order dated 30.1.2001 refers that he has examined the evidence adduced during the course of departmental enquiry which is clearly against the record and speaks about complete non-application of mind. The appellate authority also on the matter having been taken up by the petitioner by taking the view that the admission of the petitioner was voluntary and was not conditional and the case against the petitioner contained in the charge-sheet having been proved during the enquiry, has dismissed the appeal. In view of the analysis as has been made above, it is clear that, the conclusion of the disciplinary authority that the admission of the petitioner was not linked with the request to consider the case under para 19.12 (e), is clearly perverse. Keeping in mind the averment as made in para 39 of the writ petition which has not been specifically denied, deposit of the amount as back in the year 1998 there being gap of about 2 years in the start of proceedings, it appears that the petitioner was tempted to move the disciplinary authority for consideration of the claim under para 19.12 (e) of the Bipartite Settlement as is recorded in the proceedings dated 13.10.2000. Averments as made in para 39 of the writ petition is quoted hereunder :
"39. That the Union leaders (for e.g., Shri B.K. Mishra, Unit President, B.B. Sharma, Joint Secretary of Kanpur Unit, P.N.B. Staff Assn.) as well as the petitioner met the Senior Regional Manager Sri N.A.H. Subramaniam on different occasions and requested to save the petitioner from ordeal as the amount had been paid by petitioner. Sri N.A.H. Subramaniam, the then Senior Regional Manager had stated that the case of the petitioner would be dealt under 19.12 (e). i.e., the petitioner would not be given harshest punishment, i.e., dismissal or termination/removal and would be given minimum possible punishment, provided the petitioner pleaded guilty, i.e., plea bargain."
14. In view of aforesaid. It was obligatory on the part of the authorities to have examined the admission whole hog on the point in issue and not only truncated or extracted portion of the alleged admission. The inference has to be a clear one and must be unequivocal and comprehensive one.
15. Now here, it will be useful to refer para 19.12 (e) of Bipartite Settlement and its scope accordingly :
"19.12. The procedure in such case shall be as follows :
(e) An enquiry need not be held if :
(i) the misconduct is such that even if proved, the bank does not intend to award the punishment of discharge or dismissal, and
(ii) the bank has issued a show cause notice to the employee advising him of the misconduct and the punishment for which he may be liable for such misconduct, and
(iii) the employee makes a voluntary admission of his guilt in his reply to the aforesaid notice.
However, if the employee concerned requests a hearing regarding the nature of punishment such a hearing shall be given."
16. On a reading of the aforesaid provision, it is clear that the enquiry need not be held if the misconduct is such that even proved, the bank does not intend to award punishment of discharge/dismissal. On an examination of para 19.12 (e), it appears that the enquiry also need not be held if the employee makes a voluntary admission in his reply to the show cause notice. It is to be read with para 19.12 (e) (i) which speaks of the situation that if the bank does not intend to award punishment of discharge/dismissal. The provision in respect to non-holding of enquiry is contemplated under para 19.12 (e) of the Bipartite Settlement and If Sub-clauses (i), (ii) and (iii) are read in isolation, it may cause prejudice to the employee as the employee without understanding the real scope of the aforesaid procedure under the belief that if he admits his guilt, he may be allowed lesser punishment, makes admission and thus unless there is intimation to him that your admission will not be dealt with leniency and on the basis of your admission, you will be dealt severely, he cannot be punished without enquiry. If the employee is informed accordingly, then it is his choice to lead or not to lead evidence. Otherwise, also the proviso as contained under para 19.12 (e) speaks that on the request of the employee, hearing on nature of the punishment will have to be given, which pre-supposes that while awarding punishment the previous conduct of the employee, his unblemished past service record and other things will have to be taken note of and therefore, the impugned harsh decision without taking note of the aforesaid situation on the facts of the present case, cannot be said to be Justified.
17. For the reasons recorded above, it is clear that in the event, the enquiry officer/disciplinary authority were not satisfied with the request of the petitioner, it was for them to have just given an indication in any manner to the petitioner giving him 'an impression that his request is not to yield any fruit and, he is to contest the matter failing which to face the result. In absence of the aforesaid exercise on the part of the respondents, taking of the Impugned decision of dismissal of the petitioner from service in the opinion of this Court, is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice as no evidence whatsoever from the side of the respondents either oral or documentary has come to prove the charges which is the primary duty on the part of respondents and, therefore, the impugned orders deserve disapproval of this Court. The decision as has been referred by learned counsel for the respondents or the submission that this Court should not interfere in the matter of quantum of punishment overlooking to the findings of the enquiry officer and even if the enquiry officer has suggested any nominal punishment the disciplinary authority is not bound to agree and this Court may not compel the respondents bank to keep the petitioner in service, have no application to the facts of the present case. So far the case in hand is concerned, it is a case of no enquiry whatsoever and there being no evidence to prove the charges except for the admission of the petitioner which has been held by this Court, on the facts not to be unconditional and unequivocal. On the facts and circumstances, it cannot be said that the admission by petitioner was with the understanding that without any enquiry and evidence, respondents may award major punishment.
18. For the reasons stated above, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned orders dated 30.1.2001 (Annexure-15) and 31.7.2001 (Annexure-17 to the writ petition) passed by disciplinary authority and the appellate authority respectively are hereby quashed. The petitioner will be entitled to all consequential benefits which are admissible to him under law. However, it is made clear that it is always open for the respondent-bank to proceed with the enquiry against the petitioner in respect to matter in issue, if it is so desired, in accordance with law.