Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Arora,J.
Heard Sri Akhilesh Kalra, Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Gopal Kumar Srivastava, Counsel for the Bank.
Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 17.7.2010 passed by the General Manager (Planning & Development) Central Bank of India/Reviewing Authority, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition inter alia on the grounds that the aforesaid order is contrary to the Regulations;principle of natural justice and discriminatory. It has also been asserted by the Counsel for the petitioner that the authorities has acted with pre-determined mind with a view to harm the petitioner.
Facts of the case, in nutshell, are that the petitioner at the relevant time was working as Assistant Manager, Central Bank of India, Lucknow in Scale -I and was also the General Secretary of Central Bank Officers Association. Sri J. P. Yadav was the Deputy General Secretary, working as Lead District Manager, Deoria, Sri R. C. Dubey was the President of the Association, working as Senior Manager, Ganhasand, district Gorakhpur and three other officers namely, Sri R. S. Chaudhary, Deputy General Secretary, then Manager, Central Bank of India, Faizabad Road Branch, Lucknow, Sri M. K. Srivastava, Regional Secretary, then working as Manager, Ahibannapur Branch, Lucknow and Sri Prasoon Verma was the Treasurer and was working as Assistant Manager (IT) at Regional Officer, Lucknow.
The allegation against the petitioner is that on 11.5.2007, he along with Sri J. P. Yadav and R. C. Dubey went to Zonal Office, Lucknow at about 4.20 p.m. and entered into the chamber of Zonal Manager without any prior appointment and permission. During discussions, it is alleged that he threatened the Zonal Manager with dire consequences. Further, at about 6.15 p.m., the petitioner along with Sri Verma and others blocked the way of Zonal Manager at the gate of Zonal Manager's chamber and physically assaulted him and also used abusive language. Thereafter the petitioner along with others forcibly entered into the Zonal Manager's chamber and gheraoed him. The petitioner also remained absent from office w.e.f. 8.5.2007 to 11.5.2007. The management took serious note and the petitioner was subjected to disciplinary proceedings by issuing a charge sheet to him on 11.6.2007, including other employees.On 14.5.2007, petitioner was placed under suspension and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. On 15.6.2007, the petitioner made a representation to the Disciplinary Authority i.e. the Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, Regional Office, Jhansi requesting therein for copies of the statements of the witnesses as well as the documents mentioned in the list of documents in order to enable him to submit his reply. The petitioner also preferred a Writ Petition No. 1547 (SB) of 2007 before this Court challenging the order of suspension, which was dismissed by judgment & order dated 12.12.2007, with liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation before the Enquiry Officer against the enquiry proceedings which was required to be considered by the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner, in compliance of the said order, made two representations dated 14.12.2007 and 20.12.2007 before the respondent no. 3, raising his grievance. On 29.12.2007, petitioner's aforesaid representations were rejected on the ground that since the petitioner had boycotted the enquiry proceedings on 19.11.2007 and the said proceedings were concluded on the said date and, as such, after conclusion of the enquiry proceedings there was no question of supplying any document. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 16.1.2008 holding all the charges levelled against the petitioner as proved. On 21.1.2008, the findings of the Enquiry Officer were supplied to the petitioner requiring him to submit reply. The petitioner made a representation on 6.2.2008 challenging the disciplinary proceedings as well as the findings recorded against the petitioner.
The Assistant General Manager, Central Bank of India/Disciplinary Authority, after examining the enquiry report and the other material on record, punished the petitioner in terms of Regulation 4 (j) of the Central Bank of India Officers Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulation 1976, by inflicting consolidated punishment of dismissal from bank's service. Aggrieved by the said order of dismissal dated 19.2.2008, the petitioner filed a writ petition No. 483 (S/B) of 2008 before this Court and a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide its judgment and order dated 19.2.2010 disposed of the writ petition, with liberty to the petitioner to submit appeal before the Appellate Authority in terms of Regulation 79 of 1976 Regulation.
In compliance of the aforesaid order dated 19.2.2010 of this Court, the petitioner, erstwhile Assistant Manager, preferred an appeal dated 8.3.2010. The Deputy General Manager, Central Bank of India/Appellate Authority, after considering the pleas raised by the petitioner, came to the conclusion that charges against the petitioner are more grave and totally different from other delinquent employees, who were subjected to disciplinary proceedings like the petitioner, and as such, it is difficult to take any sympathetic and lenient view. Accordingly, the Appellate Authority dismissed the appeal vide its order dated 5.4.2010 and confirmed the penalty awarded by the Disciplinary Authority.
Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 5.4.2010, the petitioner approached this Court by filing writ petition No. 601 (S/B) of 2010 and this Court, vide order dated 13.5.2010, summoned the Deputy General Manager of the Bank along with all the relevant records of the enquiry. It appears that after filing of the aforesaid writ petition, the Management of the Bank, suo-motu, referred the matter to the General Manager (Planning & Development), Central Bank of India/Reviewing Authority, for review of the aforesaid orders of dismissal and appellate order. The Reviewing Authority, after perusing the order of dismissal as well as appellate order, came to the conclusion that opportunity should be given to the petitioner to mend his ways but should remain in the service of the bank being the breadwinner of the family. Accordingly, after evaluating the seriousness of the charges and the surrounding circumstances, set-aside the order of dismissal and directed for reinstatement of the petitioner in service of the Bank as a Clerk. It was further provided that after reinstatement, his basic would be reduced by two stages for a period of two years. It was also ordered that petitioner will not be entitled to get any wages/arrears or increment, salary or any other service related benefits etc. from the date of his dismissal from service till the date of his joining the duties, therefore, no emoluments/consequential service related benefits would be paid to him for that period.
It is relevant to point out that on account of passing of the order dated 17.7.2010, whereby the order of dismissal was set-aside but petitioner was reverted from the post of Assistant Manager (Class-II) to the post of Clerk, this Court disposed of the above referred writ petition No. 601 (S/B) of 2010 vide judgment and order dated 20.7.2010 with liberty to challenge the order of reversion by way of fresh writ petition.
It is in this background that the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition on the grounds aforesaid.
Sri Gopal Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the Bank submits that the Enquiry Officer had conducted the inquiry in consonance with the Rules, Regulations and all the reasonable opportunities to defend his case were provided to the petitioner and the petitioner along with his Assisting Officer had also actively participated in the Inquiry proceedings and after due inquiry, the charges levelled against the petitioner, which were grave in nature, were found to be proved. The Enquiry Officer, after due enquiry, submitted its report dated 16.1.2008 to the Disciplinary Authority. A copy of the findings of the Enquiry Officer was also furnished to the petitioner vide letter dated 21.1.2008 for making his submission over the same and in response thereof, petitioner had submitted his submissions dated 6.2.2008 through Branch Office Orai to the Disciplinary Authority.
Thus the assertion of the petitioner that principles of natural justice were breached while conducting the disciplinary proceedings, is wholly misconceived and false. As a matter of fact all the reasonable opportunity to defend the case were provided to the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority after careful examination of the material on record, evaluated the charges levelled against the petitioner in the light of the evidence produced during the course of inquiry and thereafter passed the order of dismissal.
As regard the assertion of the petitioner that the petitioner has been discriminated with the other employees' who were subjected to disciplinary proceedings like the petitioner, the Reviewing Authority in its order has observed that the petitioner was actually leading the others in respect of various acts of misconduct directed towards the then Zonal Manager. Such acts of misconduct on his part included both physical attack and use of abusive language. In these circumstances, the Reviewing Authority came to the conclusion that the delinquency on the part of the petitioner was much on the higher side when compared to that of others involved in the misconduct. However, taking the lenient view and petitioner's bread-winning capacity, the Reviewing Authority ordered for reinstatement in service with the punishment aforesaid. For the reasons aforesaid, the assertion of the petitioner that he has been discriminated in the matter of punishment, is wholly incorrect and cannot be accepted.
Using abusive languages and threatening the very superior officer with dire consequences, amounts to an act of gross indiscipline. It would be improper to allow the employees to break the discipline with impunity. Even under grave provocation, the subordinate is not expected to abuse the higher authority i.e. Zonal Manager in a filthy language. Punishment of dismissal from service was inflicted by the disciplinary authority and the same was upheld by the appellate authority. The Apex Court in the case of A. Sudhakar vs. Post Master General Hyderabad (2006) 4 SCC 348 and Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. vs. N.B.Narawade (2005)3 SCC 134 held that punishment of dismissal for using of abusive language cannot be held to be disproportionate.
Needless to mention that a person, when dismissed from service, is put to a great hardship but that would not mean that a grave misconduct should go unpunished. Taking this principle in mind and the fact that the petitioner was only the bread winner of the family, the Reviewing Authority while concurring with the findings of all the authorities i.e. Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority, took a lenient view in the matter and modified the order of dismissal in an order of reversion, which in our opinion is fully justified in the circumstances of the case.
In the wake of the aforesaid discussions, we find no good ground to exercise our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Costs easy.
Order Date :- 12.3.2012 ashok