Hon. K.N. Pandey, J.
1. We have heard Shri R.K. Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Manoj Misra appears for the respondents-bank.
2. The petitioner was appointed as Clerk in United Commercial Bank (a nationalized and scheduled bank) in the year 1973, and was posted at Rohtak Branch of the bank in the State of Haryana. He was promoted as Scale-I Officer through departmental examination in 1980, and thereafter as Middle Management Scale-II officer in the year 1997. He was transferred to Varanasi in the year 2000 and was posted their as System Administrator in the Regional Office, Varanasi.
3. On 29th December, 2000 the petitioner was suspended by the Asstt. General Manager (Operation-I)/ the competent authority in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings against him for indulging in the acts of indiscipline and indecent behaviour in the bank premises on 23.9.2000. The suspension order was passed in terms of Regulation 12 of UCO Bank Officers Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976. A statement of allegations and charges dated 5.12.2000 was served on him.
4. In the statement of allegations it was stated that on 23.9.2000, when the petitioner went to the General Administration Department and sat before Shri Krishanji Nagar, Incharge of General Administration, Department of Regional Office, Varanasi, he suddenly started speaking incoherently in a loud voice abusing the Executives of the banks. He, thereafter, used abusive language and words against the Regional Manager during office hours in the office premises. The incident happened on 10.30 a.m. before Shri Krishanji in his office. The petitioner was charged on these aforesaid allegations for having acted, unbecoming of a bank officer, violating Regulation 3 (1) of the UCO Bank Officers Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976; using intemperate and unparliamentary language; failing to maintain good conduct and discipline, and thus violating Regulation 3 (2) of the UCO Bank Officers Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976. He was also charged for leaving the station i.e. his headquarter without prior permission on which his action was also found to be violative of Regulation 13 (1) of the UCO Bank Officers Employees (Conduct) Regulations, 1976.
5. In his reply dated 10.1.2001 the petitioner denied the charges as false, baseless and concocted, and made with the intention to coerce and cow him down with some ulterior motive. He denied of using abusive words. He assured that he has best regards for his superiors, and for the institution/ organization; that he was not charged with any allegations of misconduct prior to the incident. An attempt was made, to show his failure as System Administrator, whereas he had done his best to make the system functional. The e-mail application had stopped functioning due to non-connectivity with the STD since 31.8.2000. The floppies of BS-1 and 2, had to be replaced by deputing an officer from Calcutta. Due to non-browsing of e-mails, approximately 160 messages were collected in a period of one month. The ''V Sat' connectivity was disturbed due to defect in dish-antenna. The petitioner further alleged in his reply, that he had followed the installation of hardware in different branches including Renukoot, Robertsganj, Mirzapur, Katra and Naini. The data entry system is parallel in all the branches. Inspite of his best efforts in working, he was tortured and victimized. His pay was subjected to illegal deductions and LTC for the block period ending June 1999 was denied. He requested for reinstatement to end the torture.
6. The petitioner participated in the departmental enquiry. The presenting officer produced four witnesses on behalf of the management. None of the witnesses corroborated the management story. After taking into consideration the petitioner's reply, that his defence he was being forced to surrender the post of System Administrator to appoint an officer of the liking of Shri G.S. Singh, the then Regional Manager, Varanasi Region, Shri I.M. Dwivedi, the Enquiry Officer/ Senior Manager of the bank, in his enquiry report dated 14.8.2002, found that none of the charges were proved against him.
7. A note of disagreement and dissent was recorded by the Asstt. General Manager/ Disciplinary Authority on 2.9.2002, and was served upon the petitioner. In the dissent note the disagreement was recorded on the ground, that from the deposition of the management witnesses namely Shri Krishanji Nagar, who had appeared before the enquiry officer on 30.4.2001, Shri S.K. Pandey and Shri A.I. Gujrati, who had appeared before the enquiry officer on 26.2.2002, it was brought in evidence on record that the petitioner had shouted using filthy language, disrupted the bank's work, and had used intemperate and unparliamentary words while sitting with Shri Krishanji Nagar at Regional Office, Varanasi. In the dissent note the disciplinary authority found all the charges to be proved against the petitioner.
8. The dissent note could not be served upon the petitioner, and thus a fresh communication was sent to him along with the dissent note on 3.9.2002.
9. The enquiry officer, thereafter, considered the petitioner's reply, and found the first four charges proved against him. Charge Nos.5 and 6 were not found to be proved. On charge nos.1, 2, 3 and 4 the petitioner was awarded punishment of reduction in the time scale by four stages. Since his pay had reached Rs.13,560/- in the basic scale of Rs.15,000/-, reduction was not to have the effect of postponing future increments of this pay. The petitioner's appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority under Regulation 17 of the UCO Bank Officers Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulation 1976.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was victimized for refusing to seek transfer. He was being troubled and harassed for handing over the charge of System Administrator and to make a request for transfer. Despite his best efforts to improve the computer system, he was punished by making illegal deductions in their salary and thereafter suspending him and serving the chargesheet. The statement of witnesses recorded before the enquiry officer would show that they did not support the allegations made against the petitioner. The witnesses could not give the purpose for which the petitioner had visited and was sitting on the desk of Shri Krishanji Nagar on the date of the incident. All they had stated was that the petitioner had spoken in a loud voice. When the witnesses were asked to give the details and the abuses which the petitioner was charged to have used in his conversation, they stated that he was speaking so fast, that they could not decipher the words and the abuses. The witnesses had deposed that the petitioner had expressed his anguish that whenever he was sitting with Shri Nagar, Shri S.K. Pandey, Hindi Officer expressed his displeasure. The petitioner had also stated that no one can cause damage to him, if he had not done anything wrong.
11. Shri Ojha submits that the enquiry officer, before whom all the witnesses were examined, had concluded in his report that none of these witnesses could prove the charges against the petitioner. Shri S.K. Pandey and Shri Gujarati, the witnesses, who had deposed against the petitioner, had only stated that the petitioner was not happy and was expressing himself in a language, full of anger. Their work was affected by the petitioner's loud voice for which they made a complaint to the management. Shri Gujarati stated that he does not remember the date of incident, the petitioner's salary was deducted for which he was expressing his anger. The enquiry officer had observed in his report dated 1.5.2002, that the presenting officer in his written note had agreed that none of the management witnesses corroborated the management story.
12. Shri I.M. Dwivedi, the enquiry officer had observed in his report, as follows:-
13. In the note of disagreement and dissent recorded by the disciplinary authority on 2.9.2002, it is observed that in the statement of Shri S.K. Pandey and Shri A.I. Gujarati it was stated that the petitioner was using intemperate and unparliamentary language. Shri A.K. Kashya had also appeared before the enquiry officer and stated that the petitioner was using derogatory and indecent language against Regional Manager. The disciplinary authority, however, does not appear to have read the statements of witnesses in arriving at the conclusions, which was infact the charge against the petitioner, and not the evidence. The disciplinary authority also did not appreciate that none of the witnesses could in their depositions quote the language, which the petitioner is alleged to have used. All of them replied that the petitioner was speaking too fast that they could not understand and thus they cannot say whether he had used abusive language.
14. Shri Ojha submits that the charges were not proved against the petitioner and that the punishment order and appellate orders have been passed mechanically accepting the charges without considering and appreciating the evidence. There was no evidence led by the presenting officer, appearing for the bank to prove the charges.
15. Learned counsel for the bank submits that the witnesses had deposed against the petitioner for having used unparliamentary and abusive language in loud voice. He has relied on the copies of the statement recorded in the handwriting, in defence of the impugned orders.
16. Learned counsel for the bank states that the Court should not interfere in the findings of fact recorded by the disciplinary authority and appellate authority.
17. We have gone through the statements annexed to the counter affidavit and do not find that any of the depositions can be said to have proved the charges. The questions were put by way of suggestion to all the witnesses, asking them whether the specific words put in the questions, were used by the petitioner. None of the witnesses confirmed that the petitioner had used such language. Shri Krishanji Nagar, before whom it is alleged that the petitioner had made the statements, stated that he was busy in his work; the petitioner was sitting before him. He did not remember the purpose for which he had come. Shri Nagar stated that the petitioner was talking incoherently, and was using abusive words in loud voice but did not remember the words spoken by him. He had come for some work and had stated that the Regional Manager cannot harm him. He did not reply in affirmative to the questions, by way of suggestion that the petitioner had spoken in such a way. Shri Nagar replied to a question that the petitioner told him that Shri S.K. Pandey does not have his visiting and sitting with him. Thereafter the petitioner had stated that if he is not wrong, no one could harm him. In the end of his statement the witness stated that the petitioner was speaking so fast that he was unable to understand him. In the statement of Shri S.K. Pandey it was stated that he does not remember the date on which the petitioner had come to his office. The petitioner was expressing his displeasure. Shri A.K. Gujarati also stated in his statement that he does not remember the date, when the petitioner had come to the office, some deduction was made from petitioner's salary on which he was expressing his anger and he does not remember anything else. He had signed the application, which was given by Shri Nagar to him. Shri A.K. Kashya also stated that he does not remember the date, but that on one of these days the petitioner had made some complaints. The witness could not give the reasons for which the petitioner had made the complaint. He does not remember the reasons, and the person against whom he had complained.
18. We have gone through the charges and the statement of the witnesses and agree with the submissions of the counsel appearing for the petitioner, that the findings of the enquiry officer in which he reported that even presenting officer agreed that the witnesses, did not support the allegations made in the charges. None of the witnesses had supported the allegations that the petitioner had used abusive and unparliamentary language. All of them stated that the petitioner was not happy with deductions made from his salary and was talking very fast in an angry tone. He was making some complaints in an angry tone sitting in front of Shri Nagar.
19. The disciplinary authority has stated in his order that he had applied his independent mind along with records from which he found that the enquiry officer had not done proper analysis of the evidence. He also did not make observations on the findings recorded by the enquiry officer that the presenting officer had admitted that none of the witnesses could prove the charges against the petitioner. 20. The appellate authority also failed to consider that the oral evidence did not prove the charges. It was stated before the appellate authority that the management witnesses did not prove the charges. The appellate authority, however, without going through the deposition and discussing them came to conclusion that Shri Shukla (the petitioner) had on 23.9.2000 shouted in the office premises using unsavory words towards Regional Manager, Varanasi and behaved carelessly. Both the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority did not consider that leading questions could not have been allowed to the management witnesses by forcing them to say only ''yes'. The Appellate Authority did not consider that inspite of leading questions put to them the witnesses did not support the allegations of using abusive and unparliamentary language in loud words. All they could say was that the petitioner was talking very fast in angry tone making complaints against the management for having deducted the salary and stated that since he has done nothing wrong, no one can harm him.
21. In our opinion the findings are perverse and thus we can interfere in the matter. In Parry's (Calcutta) Employees' Union Vs. Parry & Co. Ltd., AIR 1966 Cal 31 the Court observed that 'perverse finding' means a finding which is not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether against the evidence itself. In Triveni Rubber & Plastics Vs. CCE, AIR 1994 SC 1341 the Supreme Court observed that the Court can interfere, where the findings are based on no evidence or that they are so perverse that no reasonable person would have arrived at such findings. In M.S. Narayanagouda Vs. Girijamma, AIR 1977 Cant 58 the Court observed that any order made in conscious violation of pleading and law is a perverse order. A 'perverse verdict' may probably be defined as one that is not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether against the evidence. In Arulvelu & Anr. Vs. State, (2009) 10 SCC 206 the Supreme Court relied upon Godfrey Vs. Godfrey, 106 NW 814 in which the Court defined 'perverse' as turned the wrong way, not right; distorted from the right; turned away or deviating from what is right, proper or correct. The Supreme Court in Kuldeep Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police, (1999) 2 SCC 10 observed while dealing with the scope of Art.32 and 226 of the Constitution as follows:-
"9. Normally the High Court and this Court would not interfere with the findings of fact recorded at the domestic enquiry but if the finding of "guilt" is based on no evidence, it would be a perverse finding and would be amenable to judicial scrutiny.
10. A broad distinction has, therefore, to be maintained between the decisions which are perverse and those which are not. If a decision is arrived at on no evidence or evidence which is thoroughly unreliable and no reasonable person would act upon it, the order would be perverse, But if there is some evidence on record which is acceptable and which could be relied upon, howsoever compendious it may be the conclusions would not be treated as perverse and the findings would not be interfered with."
22. The charges in the present case could only be proved by oral evidence. When the witnesses did not support the allegations, and the enquiry officer found that the charges are not proved, the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority were absolutely wrong in finding that the misconduct were proved.
23. The writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 29.11.2002 passed by the disciplinary authority and the order dated 14.8.2003 passed by the General Manager (Operation-I), Appellate Authority, UCO Bank, Calcutta are set aside. If the order, for withdrawing the increment was made effective, the benefits of increment shall be restored and returned to the petitioner.
Dt.23.09.2011 SP/