C. W. P. No. 15144 of 2000 [1] THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C. W. P. No. 15144 of 2000 Date of Decision: 17 - 10 - 2008 J.P.Goel ....Petitioner v. Union Bank of India and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Shri Vipul Jindal, Advocate for Shri V.K.Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri B.B.Bagga,Advocate for the respondents. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA (ORAL) The present writ petition has been preferred by J.P.Goel, Ex- Manager, Union Bank of India praying that a writ in the nature of certiorari be issued and the enquiry report dated 6.10.1999 along with order dated 27.4.2000 by which the petitioner has been dismissed from service, be quashed. It has been further prayed that order dated 28.8.2000 received on 11.9.2000 whereby appeal of the petitioner has also been rejected, be also set aside. Petitioner joined the respondent-Bank as Agricultural Field Officer in J.M.G.S.1 on 8.2.1978. Subsequently he was re-designated as C. W. P. No. 15144 of 2000 [2] Accountant in June,1988. Thereafter, he was promoted as M.M.G.S.-II in May, 1989. He was designated as Branch Manager in June, 1990. Thereafter, he was again promoted in the category of M.M.G.S.-III in March, 1994. After hearing counsel for the parties, this Court need not go into detailed facts of the case. Suffice it to say that the petitioner was charged in December, 1998 when he was posted as Manager, CMRD, Regional Office, Jalandhar. The articles of charge have been annexed with the writ petition as Annexure P-5. He was charged with the following three charges:- “1. Failure to take all possible steps to ensure and protect the interest of the bank and discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence. 2. Acting in a manner unbecoming of a Bank Officer. 3. In the performance of his official duties and in the exercise of powers conferred on him, he acted otherwise than in his best judgment.” Petitioner filed reply Annexure P-6 before the Disciplinary Authority raising objection regarding procedure and facts from which alleged charges could be formulated and explanation was furnished that while performing duties, due care was taken and no action of the petitioner had caused financial loss to the institution. On the basis of the charges served, an enquiry was conducted. The Enquiry Officer submitted the enquiry report Annexure P-7. Gist of allegations has been noted by the Enquiry Officer. In all 11 allegations were levelled against the petitioner. According to the respondents, these allegations were very serious and amounted to forgery and tampering with the records of the Bank and the Enquiry Officer held that all charges have been proved against the C. W. P. No. 15144 of 2000 [3] petitioner. The conclusion of the enquiry report reads as under:- “CONCLUSION- All the charges taken up in the inquiry proceedings stands established against Shri J.P.Goel. The following facts also emerged in the inquiry proceedings: 1. Shri Goel has received numerous appreciation letters for Deposit Moblisation in achieving the targets/progress in the branches where he had worked. 2. His defence pleaded that there is no complaint against Shri Goel and there is no allegation of bribe against him. 3. It is brought on record that all the SOD limits/secured loans allowed by Shri Goel stands adjusted in full. There is no leakage of income or loss to the Bank. 4. Defence brought on record that Shri Goel has not introduced any accounts which are the subject matter of inquiry. 5. Shri Goel has an unblemished service record of 21 years.” Thereafter petitioner was dismissed from service vide impugned orders. Shri Jindal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has assailed the impugned order of dismissal Annexure P-10 to say that it was incumbent upon the punishing authority to take into consideration the aggravating and mitigating circumstances before determining the quantum of punishment. He has stated that major penalty of dismissal from service has been awarded without taking into consideration the mitigating circumstances enumerated by the Enquiry Officer in his report. He has stated that the conclusion wherein it has been stated that petitioner has earned appreciation reports and there is no allegation or complaint of bribe and specially it has been held by the Enquiry Officer that there was no leakage of income and loss to the Bank. As per Mr.Jindal these factors have C. W. P. No. 15144 of 2000 [4] not been considered by the punishing authority. There is no application of mind by the punishing authority to the mitigating circumstances which were high-lighted by the Enquiry Officer in the enquiry report. It has been further stated that the Appellate Authority had passed the impugned order, Annexure P-11 in a mechanical manner. Counsel for the respondent-Bank has stated that after the enquiry and dismissal certain new facts had come to light which disentitle the petitioner from the relief sought. I am afraid, this argument cannot be accepted as the respondent-Bank had ample opportunity to project its case before the Enquiry Officer. It is too late in the day to raise this argument. Taking into consideration the arguments raised by counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the punishing authority ought to have made up his mind on the recommendations made by the Enquiry Officer particularly when when he high-lighted the mitigating circumstances in favour of the petitioner. Consequently, orders Annexures P-10 and P-11 are set aside only in order to afford an opportunity to the petitioner to be heard, as the punsihing authority has not applied his mind before passing the impugned order, Annexure P-10 to the mitigating circumstances spelt out by the Enquiry Officer. However, no consequential relief by setting aside the orders shall flow in favour of the petitioner, as only an opportunity is being afforded so that the punishing authority should reconsider the matter by taking into consideration the circumstances and facts of the case which go against the respondent-Bank and in favour of the petitioner. Needless to say that the punishing authority shall not take into account the findings of the Enquiry Officer inAnnexure P-7. At this stage, this Court appreciate the submissions made by C. W. P. No. 15144 of 2000 [5] budding lawyer Shri Vipul Jindal. Petition stands disposed off. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) October 17, 2008. JUDGE RC