UCO Bank and Others vs P.C. Gupta

Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.

Respondent -P.C. Gupta, serving the petitioner - bank was removed from service on 12.8.1999 without disqualification from future service. Departmental appeal preferred by him was dismissed. He thereafter filed a civil suit inter alia against his employer - bank/defendants-petitioners challenging termination of his services. During the pendency of the said suit, as many as 186 documents were appended by the respondent-plaintiff with a request to the Court for putting those documents to the petitioners-defendants to admit or deny the same. Merely because the plaintiff-employee [respondent herein] had been shown the exit gate of the bank by terminating his services by the employer, does not make him a persona non grata to dis-entitle him the protection of principles of natural justice. As is clear from order dated 7.10.2013 of this Court, the bank petitioners showed its readiness and willingness to admit or deny the documents if certified copies thereof, in absence of original documents, are produced on record, but shown its reluctance to make admission or denial of photostat copies thereof. List of documents is on the file.

The impugned order, for ready reference is reproduced as below:--

"Present Mr. V.K. Gupta, Adv. For the plaintiff

Mr. N.K. Gupta, Advocate, for the defendant.

Heard on the application for admit or deny the documents. However, keeping in view the reply filed, counsel for the defendant is directed to file the reply in specific form. Hence, application stands disposed off accordingly. Now to come ''up on 16/8/2011 for filing the specific reply."

It is apparent from the impugned order that the employer - bank was playing hide and seek and was not making specific reply to the clear and transparent request of the employee regarding admission or denial of the documents. Reading of the paper book reveals that at one stage, the employee had sought some of these documents from the bank, but the bank had refused to produce the same on the plea that during his evidence, the plaintiff could call such documents from the concerned officials of the bank for being proved in his evidence. With these observations, the said application was dismissed on 8.2.2007.

Somehow or the other, the employee collected the documents and sought admission or denial from the bank on 24.1.2011, but the nagging attitude of the bank continued which resulted in passing of the impugned order by the Court.

It would be relevant to refer to excerpt of stand of the bank taken in reply to the application preferred by the employee for admission or denial of the documents. The said stand of the employer-bank, which is relevant, is extracted below:--

".....The defendant is not bound to admit or deny the documents mentioned in the application at the instance of the plaintiff at this stage of the case. No direction can be made to the defendant to admit or deny the alleged documents."

This stand not only reflects arrogant attitude of the bank, but also goes to reveal the wrong legal advice given to the bank by its sources. When during arguments, counsel for the bank was called upon to cite any law, either statutorily mandated or emanating from presidential mandate, he could not sustain or support his stand mentioned earlier.

When list of the documents with copies thereof has been supplied to the bank, the bank is at liberty to check its records and will be fully justified in admitting only those documents which form part of their record and are genuine ones while denying the existence or validity or genuineness of other documents which are non-existent, but the arrogant attitude of the bank as reflected in its stand, quoted earlier, is neither called for nor is sustainable or supported by any law. No infirmity is found with the impugned order. The revision petition preferred by the Bank is devoid of any merit. Dismissing the revision petition, affirming the impugned order of the lower Court, the Bank is called upon to admit or deny the documents, copies of which with list thereof have already been supplied to the bank. It is made clear that if compliance is not made within 15 days, adverse inference would be drawn against the bank.