P.S. Karwade Vs. Uco Bank and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- ordert.s. doabia, j.1. the present petition has been preferred by an employee who has since retired from service. he retired on 31st of december, 1993. a show cause notice issued to him on 8th of may, 1993 is. the subject-matter of this writ petition. before noticing further details, a few facts which are relevant be also noticed.2. the petitioner submits that in his capacity as manager of the bank, he issued a notice to one of the customers of the bank, namely m/s mangaldeep. this communication was addressed on 10th of october, 1992. this was a demand notice. this concern sent its reply. this is dated 4th of november, 1992. in this accusations were made against the,zonal manager, who also happens to be the disciplinary authority. a demand notice issued by the petitioner and the reply given by m/s mangaldeep have been appended with this petition as annexures p/8 and p/9 respectively. as letter addressed by m/s mangaldeep remained unanswered, a petition was preferred by the above concern before the national consumer dispute redressal commission, new delhi. uco bank, hereinafter referred to as the bank, was sued through respondent no. 2. the present petitioner was also arrayed as a respondent in official capacity. it is further stated that the petitioner as also the zonal manager put in appearance before the said commission on 2nd of july, 1993 and took a common stand. it is stated that the respondent no. 2 now wanted to shift the liability which is supposed to be shared by petitioner and respondent no. 2 and this is the entire motive for issuing the charge-sheet referred to above.3. the challenge to the initiation of the departmental enquiry is based on following grounds :(i) that the officer who has issued the charge-sheet was himself a party to the dispute before the national consumer dispute redressal commission, new delhi and as such, he cannot be a judge in his own case;(ii) that the petitioner retired from service on 31st december, 1993 and the enquiry cannot be continued against him after the relationship of mastermind servant has come to an end.with a view to substantiate the above grounds, it has been further argued that no order, was passed with a view to keep the relationship of master and servant alive for the purpose of continuing with the enquiry.4. the petitioner being alive to the fact that the bank has amended regulation no. 20 which permits the continuation of enquiry even after the date of superannuation has challenged the validity of the regulation on the ground that requisite procedure for amendment of the regulations was not followed. it be seen that the regulation no. 2()(3)(iii) provides for continuation of departmental proceedings even after superannuation. this amendment was made in pursuance of the decision taken by the board of directors of the bank in its meeting held on 1st of february, 1993. this regulation reads as under :-'(iii) the officer against whom disciplinary proceedings have been initiated will cease to be in service on the date of superannuation but the disciplinary proceedings will continue as if he was in service until the proceedings are concluded and that order is passed in respect thereof. the concerned officer will not receive any pay and/or allowance after the date of superannuation. he will also not be entitled for the payment of retirement benefits till the proceedings arc completed and final order is passed thereon except his own contributions to c.p.f.'it be seen that a challenge has been made to the above amendment on the ground that this was not amended in accordance with section 19 of the banking companies (acquisition and control of undertakings) act, 1970. it is stated that amendment can be made only after consultation with the reserve bank of india and only with the previous sanction of the central government. the reply given by the bank be now perused. it is denied that petitioner and respondent no. 2 were arrayed as co-respondents before the commission at new delhi. all that is stated is that uco bank was made a party and was served through the branch manager and the zonal manager. it be seen that the rest of the averments with regard to appearance before the commission have not been denied. with regard to non-observance of the procedure before making amendment in the regulations, the case of the bank is that these were amended after obtaining prior permission of the central government. as a matter of fact, a reading of annexurc p/25 makes it apparent that the amendment was made pursuant to the directions of the government and'as such, it cannot be said that this amendment was without obtaining the permission of the government of india. again so far as approval of the reserve bank of india is concerned, it is stated that this was duly obtained and this has been placed on the record as annexures. r/ix and r/x.5. i have examined the matter and i am of the view that the challenge made to the amendment carried out in the regulations is without any basis. the recital in the memo annexure p-25 indicates that the requisite approval of the reserve bank of india and the government of india was there before the amendment was carried out.6. so far as the contention that both zonal manager and the petitioner were arrayed as respondents in the petition, there is something to be said in favour of the petitioner. justice should not only be done but it should seem to have been done. this is a case where the petitioner has made an allegation that with regard to a transaction notices were served on them. the apprehension of the petitioner that he is being harassed and action has been taken by respondent no. 2 only with a view to absolve cannot be ruled out. as such, the authority higher than the zonal manager would look into the grievance of the petitioner and would examine as to whether any action is required to be taken or not be examined. till a decision is taken no further proceedings be held. this petition is disposed of accordingly.

Judgment:
ORDER

T.S. Doabia, J.

1. The present petition has been preferred by an employee who has since retired from service. He retired on 31st of December, 1993. A show cause notice issued to him on 8th of May, 1993 is. the subject-matter of this writ petition. Before noticing further details, a few facts which are relevant be also noticed.

2. The petitioner submits that in his capacity as manager of the bank, he issued a notice to one of the customers of the bank, namely M/s Mangaldeep. This communication was addressed on 10th of October, 1992. This was a demand notice. This concern sent its reply. This is dated 4th of November, 1992. In this accusations were made against the,Zonal Manager, who also happens to be the disciplinary authority. A demand notice issued by the petitioner and the reply given by M/s Mangaldeep have been appended with this petition as Annexures P/8 and P/9 respectively. As letter addressed by M/s Mangaldeep remained unanswered, a petition was preferred by the above concern before the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, New Delhi. UCO Bank, hereinafter referred to as the Bank, was sued through respondent No. 2. The present petitioner was also arrayed as a respondent in official capacity. It is further stated that the petitioner as also the zonal manager put in appearance before the said Commission on 2nd of July, 1993 and took a common stand. It is stated that the respondent No. 2 now wanted to shift the liability which is supposed to be shared by petitioner and respondent No. 2 and this is the entire motive for issuing the charge-sheet referred to above.

3. The challenge to the initiation of the departmental enquiry is based on following grounds :

(i) that the officer who has issued the charge-sheet was himself a party to the dispute before the National Consumer Dispute Redressal Commission, New Delhi and as such, he cannot be a judge in his own case;

(ii) that the petitioner retired from service on 31st December, 1993 and the enquiry cannot be continued against him after the relationship of mastermind servant has come to an end.

With a view to substantiate the above grounds, it has been further argued that no order, was passed with a view to keep the relationship of master and servant alive for the purpose of continuing with the enquiry.

4. The petitioner being alive to the fact that the bank has amended Regulation No. 20 which permits the continuation of enquiry even after the date of superannuation has challenged the validity of the Regulation on the ground that requisite procedure for amendment of the Regulations was not followed. It be seen that the Regulation No. 2()(3)(iii) provides for continuation of departmental proceedings even after superannuation. This amendment was made in pursuance of the decision taken by the Board of Directors of the Bank in its meeting held on 1st of February, 1993. This regulation reads as under :-

'(iii) The officer against whom disciplinary proceedings have been initiated will cease to be in service on the date of superannuation but the disciplinary proceedings will continue as if he was in service until the proceedings are concluded and that order is passed in respect thereof. The concerned officer will not receive any pay and/or allowance after the date of superannuation. He will also not be entitled for the payment of retirement benefits till the proceedings arc completed and final order is passed thereon except his own contributions to C.P.F.'

It be seen that a challenge has been made to the above amendment on the ground that this was not amended in accordance with Section 19 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Control of Undertakings) Act, 1970. It is stated that amendment can be made only after consultation with the Reserve Bank of India and only with the previous sanction of the Central Government. The reply given by the Bank be now perused. It is denied that petitioner and respondent No. 2 were arrayed as co-respondents before the Commission at New Delhi. All that is stated is that UCO Bank was made a party and was served through the Branch Manager and the Zonal Manager. It be seen that the rest of the averments with regard to appearance before the Commission have not been denied. With regard to non-observance of the procedure before making amendment in the Regulations, the case of the Bank is that these were amended after obtaining prior permission of the Central Government. As a matter of fact, a reading of Annexurc P/25 makes it apparent that the amendment was made pursuant to the directions of the Government and'as such, it cannot be said that this amendment was without obtaining the permission of the Government of India. Again so far as approval of the Reserve Bank of India is concerned, it is stated that this was duly obtained and this has been placed on the record as Annexures. R/IX and R/X.

5. I have examined the matter and I am of the view that the challenge made to the amendment carried out in the Regulations is without any basis. The recital in the memo Annexure P-25 indicates that the requisite approval of the Reserve Bank of India and the Government of India was there before the amendment was carried out.

6. So far as the contention that both Zonal Manager and the petitioner were arrayed as respondents in the petition, there is something to be said in favour of the petitioner. Justice should not only be done but it should seem to have been done. This is a case where the petitioner has made an allegation that with regard to a transaction notices were served on them. The apprehension of the petitioner that he is being harassed and action has been taken by respondent No. 2 only with a view to absolve cannot be ruled out. As such, the authority higher than the Zonal Manager would look into the grievance of the petitioner and would examine as to whether any action is required to be taken or not be examined. Till a decision is taken no further proceedings be held. This petition is disposed of accordingly.