Case Note & Summary
Surjit Ghosh was appointed as a Probationary Officer in United Commercial Bank on 4 October 1971 and confirmed on 24 February 1973. In August 1975, he was charged with demanding and taking Rs 1,900 as bribe from Sk. Rahul Amin. He was suspended on 23 August 1975, suspension revoked on 12 December 1975, and again suspended on 10 July 1976 when CBI took up investigation. Prosecution under Section 6(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 led to conviction by Sessions Judge on 14 July 1978, but High Court acquitted him on 4 December 1979. Meanwhile, Bank dismissed him on 17 August 1978; he filed a writ petition on 9 February 1979, and after acquittal, he wrote on 11 January 1980 for reinstatement. High Court on 25 June 1980 set aside dismissal and ordered reinstatement with consequential benefits. He was reinstated as Assistant Manager at Hazari Road Branch. On 17 August 1982 he was transferred to AGM office West Bengal Division-I and on 23 August 1982 served a letter alleging that on 14 August 1982 while working as Assistant Manager, he prepared and signed a debit voucher for Rs 4,800 as interest payable on deposit FDR, mentioning fixed deposit number 223638/108/79, obtained token, verified signature, and received cash amount. He was suspended from 23 August 1982 under Regulation 12(1)(a) and (b) of United Commercial Bank Officers (Discipline and Appeals) Regulations, 1976. Departmental inquiry was held by Manager of branch as inquiry officer, who by report dated 28 May 1985 held him guilty of two charges. Deputy General Manager, Zonal Officer, West Bengal Zone, by order dated 14 November 1985 dismissed him. His writ petition was dismissed by Single Judge and Division Bench confirmed. The Supreme Court considered the appeal. The appellant raised grievances about incompetent disciplinary authority in breach of Regulation 8(2)(iii) read with Regulation 3(g), non-supply of prior statements in breach of Regulation 8(10)(b)(iii), and denial of opportunity to explain circumstances in breach of Regulation 6(17). The Court did not go into merits of these but focused on the objection that the appellant was deprived of opportunity to prefer an appeal. It was undisputed that disciplinary action was taken by Deputy General Manager, whereas the disciplinary authority for Grade D officers was Divisional Manager/AGM (Personnel), with appeal to Deputy General Manager and review to General Manager. Since the Deputy General Manager acted as disciplinary authority, the appellant lost the right of appeal and review. The respondent Bank argued that no prejudice because higher authority, and when higher authority passes punishment no appeal necessary. The Court rejected this, holding that appeal is a substantive right and cannot be taken away; also, without guidelines, it results in discrimination. The Court thus set aside the dismissal order. On relief, considering the long pendency since 1982 and that sending back would be futile, and rejecting the Bank's suggestion of compensation of about Rs 20 lakhs, the Court directed payment of Rs 50,000 in lieu of arrears and reinstatement with continuity of service and without loss of seniority within four weeks. The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Departmental Inquiry and Appeal - Deprivation of right to appeal when appellate authority acts as disciplinary authority - United Commercial Bank Officers (Discipline and Appeals) Regulations, 1976, Regulations 3(g), 6(17), 8(2)(iii), 8(10)(b)(iii), 12(1)(a)-(b) - The appellant, a Grade D officer, was dismissed by the Deputy General Manager who was designated as an appellate authority under the Regulations while the disciplinary authority was the Divisional Manager/AGM (Personnel). The Court held that the order of dismissal suffered from an inherent defect because the appellant was deprived of the substantive right of appeal and review available under the Regulations. Held that the higher authority exercising disciplinary powers without guidelines results in discrimination and cannot be sustained (Paras 5-7). B) Service Law - Consequential Relief - Reinstatement and compensation in lieu of back wages - United Commercial Bank Officers (Discipline and Appeals) Regulations, 1976 - Considering that the proceedings had been pending since 1982 and the appellant was out of employment, and that the Bank had lost confidence in the appellant, the Court directed payment of Rs.50,000 as compensation in lieu of arrears of salary and reinstatement with continuity of service and without loss of seniority in the post to which he would be entitled on the basis of continuous service, within four weeks. Held that public money cannot be paid as huge compensation for no work, but the appellant could be placed in a non-monetary department (Paras 8-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the dismissal order passed by the Deputy General Manager, who was an appellate authority under the United Commercial Bank Officers (Discipline and Appeals) Regulations, 1976, instead of the designated disciplinary authority, deprived the appellant of his right to appeal and therefore vitiated the dismissal.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; dismissal order set aside; directed compensation of Rs.50,000 in lieu of arrears of salary; reinstatement with continuity of service and without loss of seniority in the post to which the appellant would be entitled on the basis of continuous service, within four weeks from the date of receipt of the order; no order as to costs.
Law Points
- An employee cannot be deprived of the substantive right of appeal provided under service regulations
- when an appellate authority exercises the powers of the disciplinary authority without guidelines
- it results in discrimination and vitiates the punishment order
- the order of dismissal passed by an authority not designated as disciplinary authority is inherently defective
- relief should balance fairness to employee and public interest.
