IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 11961 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION : 06.10.2009 Om Parkash ... PETITIONER Versus Union Bank of India and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Praveen Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 24.4.2006 (Annexure P-4), passed by the Disciplinary Authority, whereby the penalty of dismissal from the services of the bank has been imposed on him; as well as the order dated 14.8.2007 (Annexure P-7), whereby his appeal against the aforesaid order has been dismissed. In the present case, the petitioner was charge sheeted on the allegation that while working as Head Cashier, Bankner Branch, he was involved in various fraudulent transactions in connivance with the Branch Manager and Accountant and had misappropriated the loan amounts and the instalments of the loans received by him from the parties/borrowers. A departmental enquiry was held, in which the charges levelled against the CWP No. 11961 of 2009 -2- petitioner were proved. The enquiry report has been annexed with the petition as Annexure P-3/A. Copy of the enquiry report was given to the petitioner and before passing the order of punishment, the petitioner was provided an opportunity of hearing. It is admitted position that before passing the order of punishment, the petitioner filed detailed written submissions and he was also heard and thereafter, the order of dismissal from service was passed against him. The Appellate Authority, after considering the various submissions and after providing personal hearing to the petitioner, dismissed the appeal. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the orders, passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the impugned order of dismissal from service has been passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, as before passing the order of punishment, no show cause notice was issued to the petitioner to make submissions on the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in State Bank of India and others Versus Ranjit Kumar Chakraborty and Anr., 2009 (3) Service Cases Today 406. I do not find any substance in the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. It is the conceded position that there is no provision in the Bipartite settlement, which is applicable in case of the CWP No. 11961 of 2009 -3- petitioner, to call for the submissions of the delinquent employee on the findings of the Enquiry Officer. However, before passing the order of punishment, the petitioner was supplied copy of the enquiry report and he was also given personal hearing. It is the admitted position that in view of the said opportunity, the petitioner made detailed written submissions and also made oral submissions, and after considering the same, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the impugned penalty on the petitioner. Therefore, in my view, in the instant case, it cannot be said that while imposing the penalty of dismissal from service, the principle of natural justice has been violated. The judgment cited by learned counsel is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case. In that case, the Disciplinary Authority was not competent to impose major penalty, therefore, the matter was placed before the Appointing Authority, who passed the order of major penalty of dismissal, without hearing the delinquent employee. A contention was raised that since the rules were silent with regard to giving hearing to the delinquent employee by the Appointing Authority before passing the order of major penalty, therefore, the order was valid. While rejecting the said contention, it was observed that a hearing should be given to a person who is being punished with a major penalty. The principle of natural justice has to be read in the Rule, even though the Rule is silent. In the instant case, before imposing the major penalty on the petitioner, his written submissions made by the petitioner were considered and a personal hearing was provided to him. Therefore, it cannot be said that while passing the impugned order, CWP No. 11961 of 2009 -4- the principle of natural justice has been violated. Secondly, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the punishment of dismissal is disproportionate to the charges, alleged to have been proved against the petitioner. I do not find any force in this submission also. A perusal of the enquiry report reveals that all the charges levelled against the petitioner stand proved. A finding has been recorded that the petitioner misutilised bank's funds by pocketing the amount given to him for deposit by parties, claimed superfluous conveyance without incurring any expenditure for same and, therefore, had misappropriated bank's funds for his personal gains, which tarnished the bank's image. It is well settled that this Court in exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not interfere with the administrative decision, unless it was illogical, suffering from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscious of the Court, in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards. Keeping in view the facts of the case, nature of the allegations and the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, I do not find that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is disproportionate. Further, a perusal of the enquiry report reveals that the petitioner was given full opportunity to defend the charges levelled against him. The Enquiry Officer, while considering each and every evidence produced by the parties, has recorded the finding against the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner could not point out any illegality or perversity in the said finding of fact, on the basis of which the impugned order has been CWP No. 11961 of 2009 -5- passed, after complying with the principle of natural justice. Thus, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order. Dismissed. October 06, 2009 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) ndj JUDGE