P.G. Purushothaman vs Bank of Baroda and Others

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner an employee under the first respondent bank was issued a charge-sheet vide memorandum dated 14.5.1986. He submitted a response. Disciplinary authority was not satisfied with the response and proceeded to appoint an inquiry officer with a direction to the inquiry officer to conduct an inquiry and submit the inquiry report.

Inquiry officer submitted a report on 15.7.1988. It was adverse to the petitioner.

The report was forwarded to the petitioner by the disciplinary authority and after receiving the response of the petitioner to the report of the inquiry officer, vide order dated 27.3.1989, the disciplinary authority inflicted the punishment of dismissal from service upon the petitioner with further stipulation that the dismissal will operate as disqualification for "future employment.

Appeal filed by the petitioner against the decision of the disciplinary authority was dismissed by the appellate authority on 8.1.1990. The review petition filed before the reviewing authority by the petitioner was dismissed by the reviewing authority vide order dated 26.5.1990.

Instant petition lays a challenge to the order passed by the disciplinary authority as also the order passed by the appellate authority and the reviewing authority.

It is not in dispute that during the relevant period the Ministry of Finance (U.O.I.) directive dated 21.7.1984 was in vogue which mandated that all banking institutions would strictly act in conformity with the advice given by the Central Vigilance Commission pertaining to disciplinary matters and would not deviate from the advice of the Central Vigilance Commission except with the prior concurrence of the Central Vigilance Commission or the Ministry of Finance.

It is the case of the petitioner that in compliance with the said directive issued by the Ministry of Finance on 21.7.1984 the respondent bank had forwarded the records pertaining to the disciplinary action initiated against the petitioner to the Central Vigilance Commission which had given an adverse report against the petitioner and that without supplying the report/advice of the Central Vigilance Commission to the petitioner the disciplinary authority, the appellate authority and the reviewing authority acted as per the mandate of the Central Vigilance Commission, meaning thereby, a vital principle of natural justice was violated, in that, a report obtained at the back of the petitioner was used against him.

3 points have been urged at the hearing today. The first is, as noted above; the respondent bank acting under the advice of the Central Vigilance Commission without furnishing copy thereof to the petitioner. The second point urged is that the directive dated 21.7.1984 issued by the Ministry of Finance was struck down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the decision reported as Nagaraj Shivarao Karjagi Vs. Syndicate Bank Head Office, Manipal and another, Contention urged is that the respondents are liable to be directed to de novo consider the "matter afresh ignoring the report/advice of the Central Vigilance Commission. Lastly it is urged that the disciplinary authority had disagreed with certain findings of the inquiry officer and point of disagreement by the disciplinary authority vis-a-vis the report of the inquiry officer were not notified to the petitioner. Decision of the Supreme Court reported as Punjab National Bank and Others Vs. Sh. Kunj Behari Misra, is relied upon.

Learned counsel for the respondent urges that though advice of Central Vigilance Commission was obtained but the same was not considered, much less relied upon or acted upon by the disciplinary authority, the appellate authority or the reviewing authority. Learned counsel urges that the disciplinary authority did not record any point of disagreement on any issue "with the report of the inquiry officer.

It is not in dispute that a directive was issued by the Ministry of Finance on 21.7.1984 mandating to all banking institutions that pertaining to disciplinary cases against bank officials not only advice "should be obtained from the Central Vigilance Commission on the matter but that "the advice was binding save and except if the same had not to be acted upon or "modified, the same had to precede a prior concurrence from the Central Vigilance Commission or the Ministry of Finance.

The said directive was quashed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Nagaraj''s case (supra) on 30.4.1991. Meaning thereby, when the disciplinary authority, in the instant case, passed the order on 27.3.1989 and the appellate authority passed the order in appeal on 8.1.1990 as also the reviewing authority which passed the order on 27.5.1990, the Ministry of Finance directive was operative.

In the decision reported as 1997 (11) SCC 444 Satyendra Chander Jain vs. PNB the Hon''ble Supreme Court held that in that case since the order of removal was passed on 16.11.1988 and the directive dated 21.7.1984 was operative, it must, therefore, be presumed that while passing the said order, the disciplinary authority was acting in accordance with the said directive. (See para 4). The same presumption would apply in the instant case and hence I repel the contention in defence that the authorities of the bank while proceeding to pass the order dated 27.3.1989, the order dated 8.1.1990 and the order dated 26.5.1990 ignored the advice of the Central Vigilance Commission.

Thus, if for no other reason, the 3 impugned orders have to be quashed and the matter has to be remanded for reconsideration by the disciplinary authority on the applicability of the decisions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Nagarjun''s case (supra) and Satyendra Chander Jain''s case (supra) as also the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported as State Bank of India and others Vs. D.C. Aggarwal and another, which held that where the disciplinary authority acts on the recommendations of the Central Vigilance Commission without supplying to the delinquent employee the report in question, it would be in violation of the principles of natural justice. Ordered accordingly.

Since I am remanding the matter I refrain from going into the issue whether the disciplinary authority has recorded a note of disagreement with the inquiry report but caution the respondent that if the disciplinary authority records or has recorded a note of disagreement with the findings of the inquiry officer, at the remanded stage decision in Kunj Binaries case (supra) would be followed by the respondent.

Since the directive issued by the Ministry of Finance mandating financial institutions to strictly follow the report of the Central Vigilance Commission has been quashed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court it is clarified that the report of the Central Vigilance Commission need not be furnished to the petitioner but it is made clear that the respondent i.e. neither the disciplinary authority nor any other authority would consider, look into or go by the advice of the Central Vigilance Commission, which advice would be eschewed in its totality.

Needless to state, the disciplinary authority would reconsider the matter afresh and while so doing would consider all pleas urged by the petitioner in the memorandum submitted by the petitioner to the disciplinary authority in response to the report of the inquiry officer. All pleas urged in the said memorandum would be considered and decision taken thereon. It is again "re-emphasized that if the disciplinary authority records a point of disagreement with the report of the inquiry officer, a fresh memorandum would be issued to the petitioner notifying the point of disagreement and an opportunity would be granted to the petitioner to submit his response to the said point(s) of disagreement in compliance with the law laid down in Kunj Bihari''s case (supra).

Noting that sufficient time has gone by; unfortunately due to the docket explosion in this Court the writ petition has remained pending since 1993, it is hoped and expected that disciplinary authority would expedite the matter and would take fresh decision preferably within 3 months of the receipt of the present order. No costs.