MRS. TUMPA DEY Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In order to provide one Safai Karmachari-cum-Sub-Staff in each branch of the Central Bank of India the central office of the bank decided to initiate the recruitment process for appointment of Sub-Staff in the branches where there was no Safai Karmachari-Sub-Staff. The candidates were required to file application in the prescribed form on or before 30th November, 2011. The petitioner applied for being appointed in the said post on 26th November, 2011. In the application form the petitioner declared that her educational qualification was class eight passed. The petitioner has averred that she was appointed as Sub-Staff vide appointment letter issued in her favour on 26th February, 2013. According to the petitioner she was confirmed in the said post subsequently. Vide a memo dated 18th March, 2016 issued by the Chief Manager of the Central Bank of India Regional Office, Kolkata (South) the petitioner was called upon to give written explanation as to why disciplinary action should not be initiated against her under the provision of Memorandum of Settlement on Disciplinary Action and Procedure dated 10th April, 2002 for workmen (MOS for short) for making false declaration of her educational qualification to get employment in the bank. It was mentioned in the said memo that the school leaving certificate relied upon by the petitioner on verification was found not genuine. Thus, the petitioner has defrauded the bank by submitting a fake certificate. The act on the part of the petitioner constitutes gross misconduct as per MOS.

(2.) The petitioner was directed to submit her explanation within seven days from the date of receipt of the memo. The petitioner replied to the said memo vide her letter dated 25th April, 2016. The reply submitted by the petitioner being found unsatisfactory decision was taken by the bank to initiate appropriate action against her. A charge sheet was issued on the charge of committing gross misconduct under Clause 5(m) of MOS. A list of documents and a list of witnesses were forwarded with the charge sheet. An enquiry officer was appointed to enquire into the matter. A regular departmental enquiry commenced on 26th August, 2016 and the same concluded on 15th December, 2016. The petitioner was given full opportunity to lead evidence both oral and documentary in support of her case. The enquiry officer conducted an enquiry. The presenting officer produced eleven exhibits and one witness and the defence side i.e. the petitioner produced 42 documents to defend herself. The enquiry officer concluded that the petitioner practised fraud to secure the job in the bank. The certificate produced by the petitioner was fake. From the relevant documents it appeared that the school in question was established in the year 2005 and not in the year 2001. According to the enquiry officer the charge levelled against the petitioner stood proved.

(3.) The findings of the enquiry officer were forwarded to the petitioner and she was advised to send her submission in respect of the same within three days from the date of receipt of the said report. The petitioner submitted her written explanation vide her letter dated 17th April, 2017. The petitioner informed the bank that the certificate produced by her was genuine and the certificate was duly signed by the then Principal of the school with the rubber stamp of the school. The petitioner claimed that she was innocent. The disciplinary authority passed the final order on 21st April, 2017 and vide an administrative order dated 21st April, 2017 issued by the Chief Manager of the bank the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of "dismissal without notice" under provision 6(a) of MOS. The petitioner preferred statutory appeal before the appellate authority challenging the order of the disciplinary authority and vide order dated 10th October, 2017 the findings and the final order of the appellate authority were forwarded to the petitioner. The appellate authority concurred with the findings and the penalty imposed upon the petitioner by the disciplinary authority. The petitioner again filed a representation before the appellate authority vide her letter dated 29th October, 2017 and requested the authority to give a relook at the matter. The appellate authority vide a letter dated 20th November, 2017 intimated the petitioner that there is no scope to review the order of the appellate authority by the appellate authority itself in terms of the MOS. The petitioner thereafter filed the instant writ application challenging the entire disciplinary proceedings starting from the issuance of the show cause till the final order passed by the appellate authority.