AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The petitioner was dismissed as a disciplinary measure by the respondents-Bank management on 28-2-1973. Having failed to secure relief at the hands of the appellate authority within the administration, he has filed this writ petition assailing the validity of the disciplinary action taken by the Bank''s management. This case is coming up before the Court for final hearing after a lapse of more than 26 years after the Bank''s management took disciplinary action against the petitioner.
This case has had a long history. As pointed out supra, the petitioner was dismissed from service on 28-2-1973. It appears that when the petitioner''s appeal against the order of disciplinary authority was pending within the administration, the petitioner approached the Authorities under the A.P. Shops and Establishment Act. The Authorities under the A.P. Shops and Establishment Act granted the relief to the petitioner setting aside the disciplinary action taken by the management on 28-2-1973. The Bank''s management filed writ petition and writ appeal in this Court and both of them were dismissed. Ultimately the matter was carried to the Supreme Court by the Bank''s management. The Supreme Court allowed the Civil Appeal filed by the Bank''s management without going into the merits of the matter but on the ground that the Authorities under the A.P. Shops and Establishment Act had no authority to entertain the dispute raised by the delinquent inasmuch as the said enactment was not applicable to the petitioner''s case. Thereafterwards, the petitioner''s appeal filed before the Bank''s administration was also dismissed on 26-2-1990. Thereafterwards the present writ petition was filed in this Court in the year -1990. No interim order was granted by the Court.
Sri C, Nageswara Rao, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that (i) the management having imposed the penalty of administering warning by its proceeding dated 1-3-1973 ought not to have reopened the case and issued the charge-sheet resulting in the dismissal of the petitioner from the Bank''s service, and issuance of the charge-sheet violated the provisions of Clause 19.9 of the Bipartite Settlement; (ii) that the finding recorded by the Inquiring Authority and the disciplinary authority that the petitioner was guilty of the charge is not based on any legally admissible evidence but is grounded on surmises and conjunctures; (iii) that the appellate authority has not considered the contentions of the petitioner-delinquent and the order passed by him is not a speaking order. On the other hand, the teamed Standing Counsel would support the impugned disciplinary action.
Let me first dispose of the latter two contentions before adverting to the first contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. I have carefully perused the appellate order. The appellate authority has referred to the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, and concurred with the finding recorded by the disciplinary authority. It cannot be said that there is lack of application of mind on the part of the appellate authority to the facts and circumstances of the case and to the evidence led by the Bank''s management in the course of the departmental enquiry. I have also perused the findings recorded by the Inquiring Authority and the order passed by the disciplinary authority. The Inquiring Authority after referring to the oral evidence of MW1 to MW4 and the documentary evidence led before it came to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of, the charge. The Inquiring authority on the basis of the above evidence concluded that the shortage was made good by the petitioner only around 6.00 p.m. on 28-2-1973. Therefore, I do not find any substance in the latter two contentions of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Adverting to the first contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner it is true that Clause 19.9 of the Bipartite Settlement provides that a workman found guilty of misconduct, whether gross or minor, shall not be given more than one punishment in respect of any one charge. Making use of this provision, the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the Bank''s management having imposed the penalty of administering warning by its memo dated 1-3-1973 was legally incompetent to impose any other penalty and since in pursuance of the charge-sheet dated 7-4-1973 petitioner was dismissed from service, it tantamounted to imposing two penalties on the delinquent on the same alleged misconduct and such a course is totally impermissible having due regard to the provisions of Clause 19.9 of the Bipartite Settlement. This contention though out-worldly looks to be quite attractive at the face, a little peep into the factual matrix of this case and the other provisions of Bipartite Settlement will unfold that weakness in the submission. Should it be noted at the threshold that when the Bank''s management found missing of 1 I notes of hundred rupees denomination in a bundle stitched by the petitioner-delinquent, the petitioner-delinquent was issued with a memo calling for his explanation. The explanation was offered by the petitioner on 28-2-1973 itself. Quite curiously this document was not produced with the writ petition. When this writ petition was heard yesterday the Court wanted to peruse the same and directed the learned Standing Counsel for the Bank to produce the same for perusal. Accordingly the learned Standing Counsel made available a copy of the explanation offered by the petitioner dated 28-2-1973. It reads :
Nandyal Dated: 28th Feb. 1973 From N. Satyanarayana Murtliy Attender Syndicate Bank Nandyal Branch.
To
The Manager, Syndicate Bank Nandyal Branch. Respected Sir,
Sub : Your letter No.464-16/282-362/ BSF dated 28-2-1973. I beg to submit following few lines for your kind consideration.
Today at 12.45 p.m. Sri Ch. Venkalaruiuaiah was given an amount of Rs.56,000/- brought from the double lock and another Rs.14,000/- from Sri S. Anjancya Swainy, cashier. That was duly counted and found correct. From the former I was given Rs.6,000/- and from latter an amount of Rs.4,000/- totalling Rs. 10,0007- after duly confirmed by Sri Ch. Yenkataramiah. This amount was given to me for stitching into a section containing 100 pieces, I took the cash to the cash stitching machine. While entering the cabin, I had forgotten to close its door. Upon the instructions of the cashier I got up to close the door. In the meantime since the section contained notes of two different sizes some of the notes from the section have fallen down. Unfortunately, I did not notice it. After stitching the section I gave it to Sri Ch. Venkataramaitih. But while recounting he found only 89 pieces. When he asked I was worried and frankly told that I did not know anything about the shortage as 1 was under the impression that I had stitched all the notes.
After a thorough search I found the missing notes below the stitching machine. Immediately, I took out those notes and handed over to superior officers. So, I humbly pray your high offices this was only a human mistake and it was not at all my intention to commit theft. I repeatedly request you to excuse me for this folly and assure you that here afterwards, 1 will be very careful in performing the entrusted duties. So, I once again request you to excuse me for this mistake.
Thanking You Sir,
Yours obediently, Sd. N. Satyanarayana Mvrihy."
The Bank''s management blindly believing the explanation offered by the petitioner in his letter dated 28-2-1973 that he found the missing notes below the stitching machine perhaps thought that the action of the delinquent in missing 11 notes of hundred rupee denomination was accidental and bona fide, and in that view of the matter, it took lenient view of the matter and issued the memo on 1-3-1973 warning the petitioner not to repeat such lapses in future work. Thereafterwards, (he Bank''s management received communications from the Bank''s Officers as well as the customers to tell the Bank''s management that the petitioner on 28-2-1973 had approached them to collect monies from them to make good the loss and telling some of them that the petitioner had, without telling the officers of the Bank, appropriated 11 notes to himself. That was the background where the Bank''s management though it necessary to initiate regular departmental enquiry, and consequently charge-sheet came to be issued. The petitioner had a fair opportunity before the Inquiring Authority and the disciplinary as well as the appellate authority. It is not that the misconduct alleged against the petitioner in the charge-sheet is the same as the Bank''s management understood when it chose to administer warning on the delinquent on 1-3-1973- Therefore, it cannot be said that the penalty of administering warning on 1-3-1973 is, a penalty imposed on the delinquent in respect of the misconduct alleged against him in the charge-sheet dated 7-4-1973. The misconduct thought of by the management on 28-2-1973 and the misconduct alleged against the delinquent in the charge-sheet are altogether different. Clause 19.9 of the Bipartite Settlement only provides that when a particular charge is proved against a delinquent, such delinquent cannot be awarded with more than one punishment. The charge framed against the delinquent in the charge-sheet was not the charge levelled against the delinquent when the Bank''s management issued memo to the petitioner on 28-2-1973 calling upon him to offer his explanation. The charges are altogether different in substantive terms. Therefore, provisions of Clause 19.9 of the Bipartite Settlement cannot be pressed into service to contend that the management is guilty of imposing two penalties on the delinquent on the same charge. Be that as it may, technicalities cannot come in the way of punishing the guilty employees. It is quite often reiterated by the Supreme Court and this Court that every Bank employee is a trustee of the Bank and the judicial intervention with the disciplinary action taken by the Bank''s management should be only in those cases where the Court finds that the substantive procedure is infractured or the findings recorded by the Inquiring Authorities or the Disciplinary Authorities are based on ''no evidence'' and the petitioner was denied of a fair hearing before the Disciplinary Authorities. None of these situations are obtaining in the instant case. No ground is made out for interference. Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed with no order as to costs.