Judgment:
In the High Court at Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Original Side Present: The Hon’ble Justice Nishita Mhatre And The Hon’ble Justice Asha Arora A.P.O No.112 of 2014 Arising out of W.P. No.755 of 2011 Sri Basudev Halder …Petitioner/appellant Versus UCO Bank and others …Respondents For the petitioner/appellant: Mr. Sarajit Sen Mr. Sambhunath Sardar For the respondents: Mr. A.K. Routh Mr. Sudeep Pal Chowdhuri Heard on:
14. 07.2015 Judgment on:
27. 07.2015 Asha Arora, J.:
1. The appellant/writ petitioner, while posted as Senior Manager at Ganesh Chandra Avenue Branch of UCO Bank, Kolkata during the period from 14/12/2005 to 28/07/2007 had allegedly committed irregularities in sanctioning and disbursing loan to borrowers thereby exposing the Bank to financial loss. Departmental proceedings were initiated against the writ petitioner who was charge-sheeted on 04/01/2010.
2. The charge-sheet contained the following five articles of charge: “(i) Sri Halder failed to discharge his duties with devotion and diligence which is violative of Regulation 3 of UCO Bank Officer employees’ (Conduct) Regulation 1976, as amended. (ii) Sri Halder acted otherwise than in his best judgment which is violative of Regulation 3 of UCO Bank Officer employees’ (Conduct) Regulation 1976, as amended. (iii) Sri Halder abused his power and position and acted in a manner unbecoming of an Officer employee of the Bank which is violative of Regulation 3 of UCO Bank Officer employees’ (Conduct) Regulation 1976, as amended. (iv) Sri Halder failed to ensure and protect the interest of the Bank, which is violative of Regulation 3 of UCO Bank Officer Employees’ (Conduct) Regulation 1976, as amended. (v) Sri Halder failed to discharge his duties with utmost integrity and honesty which is violative of Regulation 3 of UCO Bank Officer Employees’ (Conduct) Regulation 1976, as amended.”
.
3. The departmental enquiry was conducted by a retired Executive of the respondent Bank who submitted his findings along with the enquiry report to the Disciplinary Authority on 28/04/2010. The final order dated 31/07/2010 reveals that after examining all the relevant records of the enquiry proceedings including the enquiry report as well as upon hearing the charge-sheeted Officer, the Disciplinary Authority concurred with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and held that Charge No.1, 3 and 4 were proved while Charge No.5 was partly proved. The punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority is quoted hereunder: “Basic pay of Sri Halder is reduced by four stages in the time scale of pay for one year with further direction that Sri Halder will not earn increment during the period of such reduction and after expiry of the period the reduction will have the effect of postponing his further increment of pay.”
.
4. The aforesaid final order was challenged by the delinquent officer before the Appellate Authority. On 11/04/2011 the Appellate Authority lessened the punishment of the delinquent by reducing his basic pay by three stages.
5. In Writ Petition No.755 of 2011 before the learned Single Judge of this Court the delinquent officer assailed the disciplinary proceedings from the stage of charge-sheet up to the order of the Appellate Authority. Vide Order dated 09/07/2013 the learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition with the following observation: “The Appellate Authority has reduced the basic pay by three stages thus lessening the punishment imposed. The punishment, in my opinion, is also absolutely proportional to the charges as proved against the writ petitioner. There is no reason, in my opinion, to interfere with the order of the Appellate Authority or with any stage of the disciplinary proceedings.”
.
6. Thus aggrieved, the delinquent officer/writ petitioner brought the matter in this intra Court appeal.
7. Despite the well settled position, we are indeed astonished to note that Mr. Sarajit Sen, the learned Counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner challenged before us the entire departmental proceedings from the stage of charge-sheet as if this Court is an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings. In a catena of decisions the Apex Court has time and again categorically reiterated that the High Court is not a Court of appeal over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a delinquent officer. In the case of Union of India and others versus P. Gunasekaran reported in (2015) 2 SCC610the Hon’ble Supreme Court in unequivocal terms reminded that the High Court can only see whether: (1) the enquiry is held by a competent authority; (2) the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf; (3) there is no violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings; (4) the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence on merits of the case; (5) the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations; (6) the conclusion, on the face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion; (7) the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit material and admissible evidence and had admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding; (8) the finding of fact is based on no evidence.
8. It has further been held in the aforesaid decision that under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not: “(i) re-appreciate the evidence; (ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law; (iii) go into the adequacy of evidence; (iv) go into the reliability of the evidence; (v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based; (vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be; (vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience.”
.
9. These principles have been extensively discussed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in several cases including the decisions in B.C. Chaturvedi versus Union of India and others reported in (1995) 6 SCC749 Union of India & another versus G. Ganayutham reported in (1997) 7 SCC463 Om Kumar and others versus Union of India in (2001) 2 SCC386 Coimbatore District Central Co-operative Bank versus Coimbatore District Central Co-operative Bank Employees Association and another in (2007) 4 SC669 Chairman cum Managing Director, Coal India Limited and another versus Mukul Kumar Choudhuri and others reported in (2009) 15 SCC620and in a recent one in Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewarage Board versus T.T. Murali Babu reported in (2014) 4 SCC108 10. Bearing in mind the aforesaid principles we proceed to deal with the case in hand. The first and foremost argument on behalf of the appellant is that the enquiry was held by a retired executive of the respondent Bank who was not a public servant within the meaning of Regulation 6 (2) of the UCO Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulation, 1976. Therefore the entire enquiry proceeding is vitiated.
11. Mr. Routh appearing for the respondents countered by referring to the relevant Regulation 6(2) of the UCO Bank which reads thus: “(2) Whenever the Disciplinary Authority is of the opinion that there are grounds for inquiring into the truth of any imputation of misconduct or misbehavior against an officer employee, it may itself enquire into or appoint any other person who is, or has been, a public servant to enquire into the truth thereof.”
. It is clear from the aforesaid regulation of the Bank that a retired public servant can also be appointed to hold such an inquiry. Therefore the submission on behalf of the appellant is not sustainable.
12. Mr. Sen, the learned Counsel for the appellant in vain tried to impress upon us that the findings and report of the Inquiry Officer are perverse as the evidence of the writ petitioner was not taken into consideration. It has also been canvassed that none of the charges levelled against the writ petitioner could be proved. The further contention of the appellant/petitioner is that without considering his representation against the findings of the Enquiry Officer the Disciplinary Authority upheld the report of the Enquiry Officer and passed the final order. Referring to the order of the appellate authority the further submission on behalf of the writ petitioner is that the points raised in appeal were not taken into consideration and there were no independent findings regarding the charges brought against the writ petitioner.
13. It is clear from the material on record that the inquiry proceedings were held in accordance with the prescribed procedure. On the basis of the evidence adduced the inquiring authority concluded that charges 1, 3 and 4 have been proved while charge No.5 has been partly proved. On perusal of the final order dated 31.07.2010 of the Disciplinary Authority it appears to us that all the relevant records of the enquiry including charge-sheet, written statement of defence submitted by the Charge-sheeted Officer, the enquiry proceedings, the enquiry report and the submissions made by the delinquent officer on the enquiry findings were duly examined by the said authority. It is further evident that sufficient and reasonable opportunity was given to the delinquent officer to defend his case and the proceedings were conducted in consonance with the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry. It is also manifest that the charges on the basis of which the punishment was imposed have been substantiated by evidence.
14. The learned Counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner could not persuade us to believe that the impugned proceedings were held in a manner inconsistent with or contrary to the rules of natural justice. We find that the Disciplinary Authority, after considering the detailed reasoned report of the Enquiry Officer as well as the reply of the delinquent Officer passed its final order. Even the Appellate Authority rendered a reasoned order after perusing all the relevant documents relating to the matter. No procedural lapses or irregularities proceedings could be pointed out. in conducting the We have not the slightest doubt in our mind that the authorities reached a fair and unbiased conclusion based on evidence and sound reasoning.
15. Coming to the quantum of punishment, we cannot overlook the fact that as a senior manager of the Bank the delinquent was holding a responsible post. It was therefore expected of him to discharge his duty with due diligence and sincerity which he failed to do. The Disciplinary Authority imposed a penalty reducing the basic pay of the delinquent Officer by four stages in the time scale of pay for one year with a further direction that he would not earn increment during the period of such reduction and after expiry of the period the reduction would have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay. The Appellate Authority lessened the punishment by reducing the basic pay by three stages.
16. The punishment is, in our opinion proportionate to the charges proved against the writ petitioner.
17. The Learned Single Judge considered all aspects of the matter and passed a reasoned order which warrants no interference.
18. The disciplinary proceedings or the order of the Appellate Authority also do not call for any interference.
19. There is no merit in the appeal which is liable to be dismissed and we accordingly do so.
20. Consequently the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.
21. Urgent photostat certified copy of Judgment if applied for by the parties shall be supplied subject to compliance of usual formalities. (Asha Arora, J.) (Nishita Mhatre, J.)