Judgment:
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) No.1790/1998 18th September, 2013 % SHRI B.R. SHARMA Through: ..... Petitioner Petitioner in person. versus SYNDICATE BANK AND ORS. Through: ..... Respondents Mr. Jagat Arora, Advocate with Mr. Rajat Arora, Advocate. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA To be referred to the Reporter or not?. VALMIKI J.
MEHTA, J (ORAL) 1. By this writ petition, the petitioner who was an employee of the respondent No.1-bank impugns the orders which have been passed by the departmental authorities; the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority; whereby petitioner has been imposed with the punishment of reduction of basic pay by three stages in the time scale of pay.
2. The charge against the petitioner was that on 12.8.1993 at about 4.30 P.M. he with two other officials, namely Sh. M.K. Jain and Sh. Ajit Singh went to the DGM Secretariat of Zonal Office, Delhi and send a slip seeking appointment with the DGM. The attender of DGM took the said slip to the DGM and came back with the said slip and conveyed to the petitioner the DGM’s inability to give him appointment. Petitioner is then said to have insisted that he will wait to meet the DGM to which the attender expressed his inability to do so since the DGM had already conveyed his decision of not giving the appointment on that date. In the chargesheet, it is stated that the petitioner thereafter waited alongwith two other officials and he was heard telling “I will see how the DGM will go out without giving me appointment. I will gherao him”. The further case of the management is that when DGM came out of his cabin at 6.00 P.M. the petitioner stood in front of him and stated that he wanted to discuss the matter with the DGM to which the DGM said that he was leaving urgently and no appointment was given to the petitioner. Petitioner is said to have found raising his voice in a high pitch of tone and shouted at the DGM saying that “I will see how you will go, I have taken appointment from your secretariat”. To this DGM said that no appointment was given and the petitioner reacted in an aggressive manner and stated that he should be given appointment now. therefore told petitioner to come at 4.00 P.M. tomorrow. DGM Petitioner is therefore stated to be guilty of creating a scene and spoiling the office discipline.
3. Enquiry proceedings were held pursuant to the charge-sheet. Before the enquiry officer, management led the evidence of four witnesses and petitioner led evidence of five witnesses. Enquiry officer has thereafter given the enquiry report against the petitioner finding him guilty. Disciplinary authority thereafter imposed the punishment of reduction in pay scale of three stages, and which order of the disciplinary authority has been upheld by the appellate authority.
4. Before I refer to the arguments urged on behalf of the petitioner, it would be necessary to reiterate that in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India filed challenging the orders of the departmental authorities, this Court does not sit as an Appellate Court and re-apprise the findings and conclusions of the departmental authorities. This Court only interferes if there is violation of principles of natural justice or perversity or violation of any rules/law. If there is no perversity or violation of principles of natural justice or violation of rules/law, this Court does not interfere.
5. The report of enquiry officer in this case is a detailed report running into 27 pages. Enquiry officer has referred to evidence of the witnesses of the management and the petitioner. By analyzing the evidence, enquiry officer has come to a finding of guilt against the petitioner. I asked the petitioner, who has argued his case in person, as to what is the perversity in the findings of the enquiry officer, to which petitioner states that perversity exists because the DGM has not himself come into the witness box and two officers who accompanied the petitioner have deposed in his favour. Reliance is also placed in support of the arguments upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Hardwari Lal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 1999 IX AD (S.C.) 11.
6. In my opinion, the argument which is urged on behalf of the petitioner that it was necessary for the DGM to personally appear in the witness box is an argument without merit because the act of indiscipline has been proved by four witnesses on behalf of the management. There is no law that for an issue of office discipline a complaint must be made by a particular person as is sought to be argued before me by the petitioner. The departmental proceedings are decided as per civil law of discharge of onus of proof in civil proceedings. In this case, there is no documentary evidence as such because the incident was an oral incident. As already stated above, this Court does not sit as an Appellate Court to re-apprise the findings and conclusions of the enquiry officer. No perversity has been pointed out to me for enabling this Court to interfere under the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Merely because two officials who accompanied the petitioner to the DGM office supported the petitioner cannot mean that petitioner is not guilty inasmuch as, as many as four management witnesses deposed against the petitioner, and on the balance of probabilities therefore considering the evidence of the respective witnesses, enquiry officer was justified in arriving at a finding of guilt against the petitioner. No perversity can be said to exist merely because two persons have deposed in favour of the petitioner, because, evidence which is led in a departmental proceeding case, like any other civil case, has to been seen as a whole, and it is perfectly legitimate for the enquiry officer to arrive at a conclusion by analyzing the evidence before him and which has been done in the present case by the finding of guilt against the petitioner.
7. Reliance placed upon the judgment in the case of Hardwari Lal (supra) is misconceived because in the facts in the case of Hardwari Lal (supra) there was a specific complaint made against the charged official by one Sh. Virender Singh and who was accompanied by Sh. Jagdish Ram at the time of incident. Neither the complainant Sh. Virender Singh nor the witness Sh. Jagdish Ram appeared and therefore in such circumstances, Supreme Court observed that in the enquiry proceedings once the complainant does not appear and nor also does other witness appear who accompanied the complainant, it cannot be said that a proper enquiry has been held. Supreme Court therefore in such circumstances quashed the order of the departmental proceedings passed by the employer.
8. Finally, on behalf of the petitioner reliance was placed on ground (O) of the writ petition to argue that as per fundamental Rule 29 when a punishment is imposed of reduction in basic pay, the authority ordering such direction shall state the period for which it shall be effective and whether on restoration the period of reduction shall operate to postpone future increments and if so to what extent. In the present case, fundamental Rule 29 of the Central Government does not apply because admittedly the petitioner was the employee of the respondent No.1-bank, and was not a Central Government employee. Therefore, the fundamental Rule 29 which is relied upon does not apply as urged on behalf of the petitioner. In any case, I do not find any ambiguity in the order passed by the disciplinary authority and which states that the basic pay of the petitioner is reduced by three stages in the time scale of pay with immediate effect. Being an unconditional order I do not think that there is any ambiguity to argue violation of law by alleged uncertainty in its language.
9. No other issue was urged before me.
10. In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition, and the same is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs. SEPTEMBER 18 2013 Ne W.P.(C) No.1790/1998