Jharkhand HC Quashes Bank Employee's Dismissal Due To Lack Of Relevant Documents, Labels Punishment As 'Too Harsh'
Terming an enquiry report of a bank as 'perverse' for non-supply of relevant documents to the Petitioner alleged of committing irregularities in the Bank and finding the punishment of dismissal from service as 'too harsh', the Jharkhand High Court recently quashed an order of termination passed against a bank employee in the year 2015.
The Single Judge Bench of Justice Dr. S.N. Pathak was dealing with a Writ Petition filed by one Devendra Prasad Yadav who held the position of Credit Officer at the Ranchi Main Branch of Jharkhand Gramin Bank. The bank's then-manager filed two FIRs related to alleged fraudulent activities within the bank. The first FIR accused three individuals, but the petitioner was not initially implicated.
Subsequently, a second FIR was filed by the same manager, claiming that a credit had been made inappropriately to an account associated with the petitioner. The bank issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner, requesting an explanation. However, due to the unavailability of necessary documents from the bank, the petitioner couldn't respond within the given timeframe. As a result, the petitioner was arrested and suspended by the bank. Another show-cause notice was issued, but unfortunately, the petitioner was unable to provide a response. Consequently, the bank decided to initiate departmental proceedings against the petitioner and served a charge sheet.
Further, the crucial documents needed for a proper defence were not furnished to the petitioner and the departmental inquiry eventually found the petitioner guilty of the charges. Challenging which the Petitioner approached the High Court.
The Petitioner before the Court submitted that the action of the respondents is illegal, arbitrary and without jurisdiction. It was also argued that most of the charges levelled on the petitioner are related to the alleged transactions made 10 years back and during the course of departmental proceedings when he asked the Presenting Officer to produce the documents related to those old transactions, the same was denied on the ground that the same was not available in the Branch.
The petitioner stated that the non-supply of relevant documents has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner if those documents had been brought on record, then the petitioner would have certainly been in a better position to explain what actually happened 10 years back.
On the other hand, the Respondents argued that the Bank had served a memorandum calling explanation to the petitioner which was subsequently replied to, however, being not satisfied with the reply of the petitioner and considering the grave offence alleged to have been committed by him and there was likelihood of Bank sustaining huge financial losses, it was decided to initiate departmental proceeding in which the petitioner was held guilty of the charges levelled against him and as such, the Disciplinary Authority issued order of dismissal.
Further on the issue of the 2nd show-cause notice, the respondents argued that the enquiry report was made available to the petitioner, so there is no violation of principles of natural justice and the Appellate Authority was also of the view that the petitioner was neither kept deprived of natural justice nor any decision affected by being prejudiced was caused to him.
Considering the arguments of both sides, the Court observed that it is an established legal principle that the essential requirement for taking disciplinary action, especially in the case of dismissal, is to issue a second show-cause notice along with a copy of the investigation report. The Court stated that without following this procedure and giving the individual an opportunity to respond to the allegations through a second show-cause notice, any imposition of punishment, including dismissal, is not legally valid.
"(I) Admittedly, non-supply of relevant documents caused serious prejudiced to the petitioner. It has been admitted by respondents that some of the documents were not available with the respondents and as such, the same could not be supplied to the petitioner. (II) When a particular document was relied upon by the delinquent, the same was to be served to him seeking his reply. In the case of non-supply of the same, the enquiry report would be termed to be perverse", stated the Judgement.
The Court also observed in its Judgement, "(III) Petitioner had an unblemished service career of 27 long years but the same was not considered by the respondents while inflicting punishment upon him. The respondents ought to have considered his unblemished service career of 27 long years which does not warrant at least major punishment of dismissal. (IV) The respondents have admitted that 2nd show-cause notice was not served along with enquiry report rather, it was argued that since enquiry report was served there was no requirement of issuance of 2 nd show-cause notice."
Finding the punishment of dismissal as too harsh, the Court quashed the impugned orders. Further, finding the arguments of the bank as totally misconceived and not in consonance with law, the Court accordingly remitted the matter back to Respondents to consider the case of Petitioner for inflicting lesser punishment.
Cause Title: Devendra Prasad Yadav v. Jharkhand Gramin Bank and Ors. [W.P.(S). No. 1432 of 2016]
