Tanumoy Basu vs United Bank of India and Others

Arindam Sinha, J.—The writ petitioner was employed by the respondent United Bank of India mainly for his achievements in the field of football as a player. He was posted at the Howrah Branch of the bank when he received memo dated 30th June, 2004 informing him disciplinary action was contemplated against him and he was suspended with immediate effect. The Disciplinary Authority by letter dated 23rd November, 2004 delivered the article of charge and the statement of allegations. By a further letter dated 31st January, 2005 the charge-sheet issued earlier was amended. The inquiry proceeding was held and inquiry report dated 24th March, 2005 submitted. Upon consideration of the inquiry report, by letter dated 11th May, 2005 the Disciplinary Authority imposed upon the petitioner the major punishment of dismissal from the bank''s service with immediate effect which shall ordinarily be disqualification for future employment. On appeal preferred therefrom the Appellate Authority by his order dated 2nd September, 2005 confirmed the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority.

Mr. Debabrata Saha Roy, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner pressed two of several points that he had raised by way of argument. Firstly, he submitted, there was only one charge brought against the petitioner but it would appear from the inquiry report that the Inquiry Officer proceeded against the petitioner taking the allegations in the statement of allegations to be charges brought against the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority in its turn proceeded in the same manner in agreeing with the findings of the Inquiry Officer. According to him this was non-application of mind apparent on the face of the record which vitiated the inquiry proceeding and anything done pursuant thereto. The reasonableness or otherwise of the order of the Appellate Authority could not justify the non-application of mind that had gone before as otherwise it would amount to substitution of the non-application of mind of the Inquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority by the order of the Appellate Authority where the inquiry proceeding was itself bad which went to the root of the matter.

Mr. Saha Roy next submitted that in any event there was no reason disclosed in the order of the Disciplinary Authority for finding agreement with the inquiry report and thereupon awarding major punishment. In the circumstances, the petitioner was entitled to maintain his challenge against the said charge-sheet as amended, the inquiry report, the order of the Disciplinary Authority as well as the order of the Appellate Authority. To emphasize the points made Mr. Saha Roy relied upon the decision reported in Ravi Yashwant Bhoir Vs. District Collector, Raigad and Others, , in paragraph 8 of which judgment the Hon''ble Supreme Court had declared it is a settled proposition of law that even in administrative matters, the reasons should be recorded as it is incumbent upon the authorities to pass a speaking and reasoned order.

Though by order dated 5th October, 2005 direction for filing affidavits was given, no affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. Ms. Sumouli Sarkar, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the charge was proved. She pointed out that there was no allegation, as there could not be, that there was any procedural lapse in the matter of conduct of the disciplinary proceedings and in view of the said proceedings culminating in the Appellate Authority''s well reasoned order, the conclusion that the charge was proved and the punishment justified is inescapable. She submitted that the points argued on behalf of the petitioner were not taken specifically in the writ petition.

The charge-sheet which is annexure P-2 to the writ petition discloses one article of charge. The statement of allegations on which the article of charge was based, contains two paragraphs, the second of which in turn contains four sub-paragraphs being (a) to (d) thereof. The amendment made to the charge-sheet, as appears from the letter dated 31st January, 2005 being annexure P-3 to the writ petition, incorporated a replacement of paragraph 2(c) to the statement of allegations in the said charge-sheet dated 23rd November, 2004.

However, from a copy of the inquiry report dated 24th March, 2005 handed up by the petitioner and kept in the record, it does appear that the Inquiry Officer proceeded with the inquiry taking the allegations in the statement of allegations to be the charges framed. The charges referred to in the said report are a reproduction of the allegations in the statement of allegations. Though the article of charge is very similar to paragraph 1 of the statement of allegations but what has been reproduced as charge no. 1 is in fact paragraph 1 of the statement of allegations and not the article of charge itself. It further appears from the said report that the Inquiry Officer went on to consider the amendment to paragraph 2(c) of the statement of allegations as an amendment to charge no. 2(c).

The Disciplinary Authority also carried on in the same vein. In his order dated 11th May, 2005 he also reproduced the statement of allegations as the charges framed. The Disciplinary Authority went one step further in omitting to notice that paragraph 2(c) of the statement of allegations which he had reproduced in his order as charge no. 2(c) had been amended subsequently. No reason was disclosed in the said order as to why the Disciplinary Authority concurred with the finding of the Inquiry Officer. It appears that the Disciplinary Authority, if at all applied his mind, it was directed towards examining the submissions made and clarification given by the petitioner in response to the inquiry report.

The omission on the part of the Disciplinary Authority is glaring. It is the Disciplinary Authority who framed the charge-sheet and amendment thereto. The inquiry was conducted without minimum scrutiny as to what was the charge and the allegations on which it was based. To visit the petitioner with the findings in such an inquiry report and punishment meted out in consideration thereof, would amount to grave injustice.

In the facts and circumstances aforesaid the petitioner has been able to demonstrate that there was non-application of mind in the matter of inquiry proceedings and concurrence with the inquiry report by the Disciplinary Authority that entitles the petitioner to succeed in his challenge made against the inquiry report and the order of the Disciplinary Authority. If the inquiry report and the order of punishment made upon concurring with such report cannot be sustained, the order of the Appellate Authority, even though apparently a well reasoned one, if allowed to stand would amount to rectification of the omission of application of mind by the Inquiry Officer as well as the Disciplinary Authority which cannot be done since the inquiry was misdirected. That the above points were not specifically pleaded in the writ petition also cannot obliterate the challenge since the non-application of mind and failure to disclose reasons is apparent on the face of the record and the respondents had ample opportunity to meet such challenge, which they could not. Hence the petition succeeds in part. There will be an order in terms of prayers (c), (d) and (e) of the writ petition. The departmental proceedings have to be initiated afresh from the point of inquiry upon paying subsistence allowance to the petitioner including arrears. Such proceedings must commence within four weeks from the date of communication of this order upon the respondents by the petitioner.

The writ petition is disposed of.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties on usual undertakings.