LexPUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ORS. versus SH. KUNJ BEHARI MISRA ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND ORS. v. SH. KUNJ BEHAR! MISRA ETC. AUGUST 19, 1998 B (S.C. AGRAWAL, S.P. BHARUCHA AND B.N. KIRPAL, JJ.] Se1vice Law-Punjab National Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1977-Regulations 6, 7-Disciplinwy proceedilig~--Ac tion on the inqui1y repmt-Finding recorded by Jnqui1y officer that all or some C of the charges alleging misconduct against an official are not proved-Can the disciplina1y autho1ity differ jivm that and give a contrwy finding afTording any oppo1twzity to delinquent ojfice1~Held, No-Plinciples of natural justice to be read into Regulation 7(2). D Disciplinary proceedings were initiated by the appellant bank against respondents, Assistant Managers of the bank when on physical verification of the currency chest a shortage of Rs. 1 lac currency was found in the bank. An enquiry ollicer was appointed to hold an enc1uiry; he found respondent No. 1 guilty only of one charge, namely that he did not sign the relevant register from 28.10.1981 to 9.11.1981 but exonerated him of char- E ges 2 to 6 while respondent 2 was found not guilty of any of the charges alleged against him. The disciplinary authority to whom the reports were submitted did not agree, in the case of respondent 1, with the findings of the inc1uiry ollicer in respect of the charges 2 to 6 and held respondent No. 1 to be responsible for the shortage, holding that he being Assistant F Manager was in the joint custody of the keys of the currency chest and he had personal responsibility towards safe custody of the cash and that no material had been placed to establish that he had discharged his duties in the manner expected of him. It was held that a minor penalty of propor- tionate recovery ought to be imposed on the respondent for the loss of Rs. 1 lac caused to the bank due to negligence on ·his part in the discharge of G his duties. Against respondent 2 also while not agreeing with the inquiry report the disciplinary authority passed an order directing proportionate recovery of the loss caused to the bank by him. As both respondents superannuated during the pendency of these disciplinary proceedings, the · disciplhiary authority directed the recovery of the money from the bank's H contribution to the Provident I<und of the respondent ollicers. 22 P.N.B. v. KB.MISRA 23 The respondents filed Civil Writ Petition alleging that the discipli- A nary authority, who had chosen to disagree with the conclusions arrived at by the inquiry oflicer, could not have come to adverse conclusions without giving them an opportunity of being heard. The High Court allowing the Writ Petition quashed the order imposing penalty and directed the appellants to release the retirement benefits. These appeals were filed against the judgment of the High Court. B The appellant contended that Punjab National Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1977 did not require an opportunity of being heard being given to the delinquent ollicer when the disciplinary authority disagreed with the findings of the inquiring C authority once the inquiring authority had given a hearing to them. The respondents submitted that even if there was no provision in the regulations nevertheless it was incumbent upon the punishing authority to give nqtice to the respondent if the authority desired to differ ''ith a favourable finding recorded by the disciplinary authority were contrary to the provision of the regulations and were based on surmises and conjec- tures. D The question raised for consideration in this appeal is that when the inquiry oflicer, during the course of disciplinary proceedings, comes to a E conclusion that all or some of the. charges alleging misconduct against an ollicial are not proved then can the disciplinary authority differ from that and give a contrary finding without affording any opportunity to the delinquent oflicer. Dismissing the appeal, this Court HELD: 1.1.Under Regulation 6 of the Punjab National Bank Ollicer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1977, the inquiry proceed- ings can be conducted either by an inquiry ollicer or by the disciplinary authority itself. When the inquiry is conducted by the inquiry officer his report is not final or conclusive and the disciplinary proceedings do not stand concluded. The disciplinary proceedings stand concluded with decision of the disciplinary authority. It is the disciplinary
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.