The United Commercial Bank (UCO Bank) and Others vs S.C. Girotra

R.S. Mongia, J.—S.C. Girotra writ-petitioner (now respondent) in the present Letters Patent Appeal, was working as a Manager in the United Commerial Bank, Punjab Division, Chandigarh (hereinafter called the Bank) He was dismissed from service vide order dated 6th February, 1986 (Annexure P-3) His appeal against that order was also dismissed vide order dated 10th September, 1986 (Annexure P-4). Girotra challenged the orders, Annexures P-3 and P-4 by way of writ petition in this Court. The learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and set aside the order of dismissal mainly on the ground that the impugned orders were passed in violation of the Rules of natural justice. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the Bank has come up in appeal.

Girotra was served with a charge-sheet on 15th September, 1974 of which he submitted a detailed reply. After holding departmental enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority on the basis of the enquiry report, passed an order of dismissal dated 6th February, 1986 (Annexure P-3). In fact, on different charges, different punishments were given and in respect of Charges No. 3 and 4. the dismissal order was passed There were in all the charges Before the learned Single Judge, the points raised were that the petitioner was not granted any opportunity to cross-examine the witness produced by the Bank against him; that the petitioner was not allowed to lead his evidence in defence by producing his witnesses; that the petitioner was not given an opportunity of hearing by the Disciplinary Authority before passing the impugned order of dismissal and that no show cause notice was given to him after the submission of the enquiry report nor copy of the enquiry report was supplied to him; that no oppoftunify of personal hearing was afforded to the petitioner by the Appellate Authority before dismissing the statutory appeal The case of the petitioner was that in view of the above, his defence has been prejudiced as adequate and reasonable opportunity was not given to him and therefore both the orders were in vitiation of the rules of natural justice. On the basis of above points, the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the rules of natural justice had been violated and consequently, allowed the writ petition.

The learned counsel for the Bank has submitted that as far as the question of opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses having been denied, is concerned, the witnesses who were not cross-examined were those who were just formal witnesses and had produced certain documents certifying them to be true of the original documents. Since they had just produced documents, the question of their cross-examination by the petitioner did not arise. We find that there is considerable force in this argument. A formal witness who just produces a document and has no knowledge of the case, need not be allowed to be cross examined It was not the case of the writ petitioner that any document which was produced by them was not authentic document In each case the facts have to be seen and it cannot be said that in each and every case right to cross-examine every witness produced must be afforded.

There is no provision under the Service Rules of the Bank that before imposing punishment, any show cause notice is required to be given or the delinquent officer is to be heard. No fault can be found in the order of dismissal on the ground that before passing the order no show cause notice or opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner.

As far as the question of denying opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner by the Appellate Authority is concerned, there is force in this contention Simply because the Service Rules of the Bank provide that written briefs can be given to the Appellate Authority is no substitute for personal hearing. After Article 311(2) of the Constitution was amended and the requirement of the second show cause notice before imposing punishment was taken away, it has been held by the Supreme Court in Ram Chander v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 1968 S.C. 1173, that the Appellate Authority must give an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent officer. In the present case also, there is no provision in the Service Rules of the Bank that second show cause notice is required to be given before imposing punishment. That being so, it was incumbent on the Appellate Authority to have given personal hearing to the appellant That being the position in law, the order passed in appeal (Annexure P-4) cannot be sustained. While upholding the order of dismissal dated 6th February, 1986 (Annexure P-3), we quash the order passed by the Appellate Authority (Annexure P-4) and remand the case to the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal afresh after affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the respondent. Respondent S.C. Girotra will at liberty to raise all points which shall be considered by the Appellate Authority. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Appellate Authority on 10th September, 1980 The Appellate Authority would decide the appeal within a period of six months.

The Letters Patent Appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above, with no order as to costs.