1. Rule. Mr. Darshan Parikh, learned advocate appearing for the respondents waives service of notice of Rule.
2. The petitioner herein has prayed to quash and set aside the charge sheet dated 07.01.2009, the report of the Inquiry Officer dated 09.06.2009, the order dated 31.12.2009 dismissing the petitioner from service of the respondent Bank and the order dated 13.04.2010 passed by the Executive Director rejecting the appeal of the petitioner.
3. The petitioner herein was recruited as a Marketing Officer in JMG/S-1 with effect from 20.04.2006 in Bank of Baroda and was posted at Ahmedabad. On 15.11.2007, the petitioner applied for six months maternity leave which was sanctioned by the respondent Bank. Thereafter, vide letter dated 09.05.2008, the petitioner sought for extension of leave till 16.09.2008. The respondent Bank granted only 29 days leave. Thereafter, on one after the other occasions, the petitioner sought extension of leave which were rejected by the respondent Bank.
3.1 The petitioner on 10.12.2008 sought transfer to Delhi on compassionate grounds which was turned down by the respondent Bank. Thereafter, on 07.01.2009, the respondent Bank issued a charge sheet against the petitioner and a departmental inquiry was initiated and ultimately the petitioner was inflicted with the penalty of 'removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment'. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the order of disciplinary authority and the appellate authority dismissed the appeal confirming the order of the disciplinary authority. Being aggrieved by the said orders, the present petition is preferred.
4. Mr. Dave, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that from a perusal of the charge sheet issued against the petitioner, it is clear that the allegations in substance imposes only three charges against the petitioner vis-a-vis (a) refusal to KRA (b) not providing address for communication (c ) unauthorized absence. He submitted that rather than dealing with each and every allegation separately, the petitioner found it more convenient to defend herself by refuting the substance of the charges through the written briefs and the explanations before the Inquiry Officer. Instead of appreciating the case and evidence of the petitioner in the proper context the I.O wrongly infers that the petitioner has not furnished any argument on these allegations and hence held them to be proved. He submitted that the petitioner had the fittest case where the authorities ought to have applied the discretion available in their arsenal in favour of the petitioner and ought to have granted leaves which she was entitled to considering the stark necessity of the situation.
4.1 Mr. Dave further submitted that the order of the appellate authority also inter alia suffers from infirmities and illegalities. He submitted that the order is a totally non speaking order without mentioning any substantive reason why the pleas of the petitioner are not maintainable and therefore the same is liable to be quashed and set aside.
5. Mr. Darshan Parikh, learned advocate appearing for the respondent Bank supported the stand taken by the respondent authority and submitted that the same being in accordance with law does not call for any interference by this Court. He submitted the charges against the petitioner are proved during the departmental inquiry. Mr Parikh has relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Oriental Bank of Commerce and Another vs. RK Uppal reported in 2011(8) SCC 695.
6. The petitioner was a probationary officer with the respondent Bank and had not completed her period of probation. For the alleged acts of misconduct alleged against the petitioner departmental inquiry was conducted after following due principles of natural justice. The petitioner did not attend the preliminary hearing or any of the hearing of the departmental inquiry. She was inquired if she wanted to examine any witness which opportunity she did not avail of. The petitioner was supplied with relevant documents. The petitioner did not remain present and therefore the inquiry proceeded exparte. The inquiry officer after considering the evidence on record and after considering the written submissions of the presenting officer as well as the petitioner came to a conclusion that all the charges levelled against the petitioner were held proved by Finding Report dated 09.06.2009. The said Finding Report was sent to the petitioner vide order dated 11.06.2009 to enable her to make any representation/submission. However, the petitioner did not submit any representation against the inquiry report and therefore vide order dated 31.12.2009 the order of dismissal was passed against the petitioner.
7. This Court has gone through the chronological details of service tenure of the petitioner as narrated in the affidavit in reply. The petitioner out of 24 months of probation period had actually worked only for 17 months and 174 days. During the said period, she had also enjoyed authorized Casual Leave, Privilege Leave and Sick Leave accrued to her and was not having any balance and had unilaterally decided to remain on leave which was treated as unauthorized absence. The charge of unauthorized absence has been admittedly proved. The respondent Bank after following due procedure under law and after following principles of natural justice found it fit to dismiss the petitioner from service and therefore the petitioner was inflicted upon the penalty of 'removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment'. No malafide is alleged against any officer of the Bank.
8. In the case of Oriental Bank of Commerce (supra) the Apex Court has held as under:
“...However, personal hearing may not be required where the appellate authority, on consideration of the entire material placed before it, confirms, reduces or sets aside the order appealed against. Regulation 17 of the 1982 Regulations does not require that in all situations personal hearing must be afforded to the delinquent by the appellate authority. The view taken by the Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Ram Niwas Bansal2 is too expansive and wide and cannot be held to be laying down correct law particularly in light of the judgment of this Court in Mahendra Kumar Singhal . We answer this question accordingly.
The High Court has faulted the order of the appellate authority also on the ground of it being a non-speaking order. Is it so? We have carefully perused the order of the appellate authority and we find that the order dated June 4, 2004 cannot be labelled as a non-speaking order. The order does not suffer from the vice of non- application of mind. The appellate authority has addressed the points raised in the appeal and critical to the decision, albeit briefly. It is true that the appellate authority must record reasons in support of its order to indicate that it has applied its mind to the grounds raised but it is not the requirement of law that an order of affirmance by the appellate authority must be elaborate and extensive. Brief reasons which indicate due application of mind in decision making process may suffice. Each ground raised in the appeal has been dealt with briefly as would be apparent from the following consideration of the matter by the appellate authority ”
9. This Court, therefore, does not find any infirmity with the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority and does not see any reason for causing interference in the matter. Petition, therefore, stands dismissed accordingly. Rule is discharged.
(K.S. JHAVERI, J.) Divya//