LPA No. 17 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 17 of 2008 Date of Decision: 31.01.2008 Punjab National Bank and others ......Appellants through Mr. Sanjeev Bansal, Advocate versus K.K.Verma son of Beli Ram Verma .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER JAIN, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ***** Vijender Jain, Chief Justice (Oral) Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge, Punjab National Bank i.e. the appellant has filed the present Letters Patent Appeal. Learned Single Judge has come to a finding that the order of dismissal of the respondent was bad as the same violated the principles of natural justice. In order to appreciate the controversy between the parties, the order of dismissal is reproduced as below:- LPA No. 17 of 2008 [2] “Punjab National Bank Zonal Officer Chandigarh. Ref: ZO:DAC: Dated: 17.4.85 Shri K.K.Verma, 251-Green Avanue, Amritsar. Reg: Departmental Enquiry against you – charge-sheet Dated 12.8.83. You were served with charge-sheet dated 12.8.83 for the serious irregularities/lapses committed by you while working as Manager, BO: Jallianwala Bagh, Amritsar. To know the truth of imputations of lapses on your part, enquiry proceedings were initiated against you in terms of PNB Officer Employees (D&A) Regulations, 1977 (Clause-6) and for this purpose Shri A.L.Pahwa, Manager, BC: Akali Market, Amritsar, was appointed as Enquiry Officer and Shri A.K.Aggarwal, Manager, PF Deptt., HO, New Delhi was Civil Writ Petition No.2756 of 1986 -3- appointed as Presenting Officer. The Enquiry Officer has since submitted his report alongwith relevant records of the proceedings in the above matter. I have carefully gone through the report alongwith the entire record of the enquiry proceedings and agree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and hold you guilty of the aforesaid serious irregularities/lapses. LPA No. 17 of 2008 [3] Keeping in view the above, I decide to impose upon you the major penalty of your removal from the service of the Bank with immediate effect. A copy of the detailed orders passed by the undersigned in regard to the above matter alongwith a copy of the Enquiry Report is enclosed herewith. Sd/- Disciplinary Authority Deputy General Manager” . On two counts, the learned Single Judge found that order of dismissal of the respondent by the appellant bank was bad in law i.e. firstly on account of the fact that enquiry report was not furnished to the delinquent employee and secondly, that the order of dismissal was passed by the Disciplinary Authority without giving an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent official to show cause his case with regard to penalty of dismissal and that order was mechanically passed on the basis of enquiry report.. The learned Single Judge also recorded a finding that when the appellant bank was called upon to furnish the record in support of the assertion that enquiry report was furnished, the appellant bank miserably failed to do so. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that Disciplinary Authority passed the order prior to 20.11.1990 i.e. before coming into force Union of India vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan 1991(1) SCC 588. He also relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in case Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and others V. B.Karunakar and LPA No. 17 of 2008 [4] others 1993(4) Supreme Court Cases 727, to contend before us that as in this case the enquiry was conducted in the year 1985, it was not necessary for the appellant to supply the enquiry report. He further placed reliance on Om Parkash Mann v. Director of Education (Basic) 2006(7) Supreme Court Cases 558 to contend that prejudice caused was not contended before the learned Single Judge. We have heard the learned counsel and gone through the paper book as well as the case laws cited at bar. We are afraid that even if the aforesaid authorities cited by learned counsel for the appellant lay down a mandatory law for giving of enquiry report in cases where disciplinary enquiries were initiated/completed after 1990 or the concept of prejudice caused, yet the principles of natural justice are always there to protect the right of hearing to be provided to the delinquent official before awarding him punishment. Learned counsel for the appellant in its ingenuity has forgotten that stand taken by the appellant before the learned Single Judge was that the enquiry report as a matter of fact was supplied to the respondent and on that basis, learned Single Judge had directed the appellant bank to produce the record so as to show whether enquiry report was supplied or not. Therefore, it was a defence which was raised by the appellant based on false averments before the learned Single Judge. Even if it is assumed that enquiry report was not to be supplied in view of B.Karunakar's judgment (supra), the question which remain is whether the appellant was justified in passing a mechanical order reproduced above on the basis of the enquiry report inflicting major penalty of dismissal from service of the respondent LPA No. 17 of 2008 [5] without observing principles of natural justice i.e. to give an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent employee to show cause as to what he has to say with regard to proposal of dismissal. To our mind, the whole exercise of the appellant is bereft of any reasoning except to the fact that by hook and crook they had to throw out the delinquent official without observing the principles of natural justice. In the Service Jurisprudence, from an employer like the appellant bank before us, in extreme penalty of dismissal from service least required is to have an opportunity granted to the delinquent official to show cause about the quantum of punishment inflicted upon him, which has not been done in this case. We have perused the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge has still allowed the appellant bank to decide the question of proposed punishment after following the principles of natural justice by affording an opportunity to the respondent in the context of proposed punishment. We find no merit in this matter. This kind of appeal is only an abuse of the process of law, therefore, we dismiss the same with costs of Rs.25,000/-. (VIJENDER JAIN) CHIEF JUSTICE (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA) JUDGE 31.01.2008 'ravinder'