M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) IN this writ application the petitioner has challenged the order of his dismissal from service as contained in the letter dated 1.12.95 and also the order by which the departmental appeal filed by him was rejected by the authorities of the respondent -State Bank of India.
(2.) IT appears that in 1992 while the petitioner was working in the Bank as a clerk, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him in which the petitioner was reverted from the post of Teller to the post of clerk -cum -typist. In 1993 a fresh charge sheet was served upon the petitioner alleging, inter alia, that in the written statement filed by him in the earlier departmental proceeding he used extremely derogatory language against the superior authorities and also levelled malicious allegations to the highest authorities of the Bank. The other charge was that while he was working as a Teller at the Gumla branch of the Bank, he threatened the Branch Manager in his chamber and thereby displayed riotious, disorderly and indecent behaviour in the premises of the Bank. The petitioner filed reply to the charges levelled against him and in the departmental proceeding the Enquiry Officer, after holding full fledged inquiry, submitted his report holding that the first charge was fully proved and the second charge was partly proved. The Disciplinary authority, thereafter, issued show cause notice dated 18.10.95 together with his reasonings for disagreeing with the second finding of the Enquiry Officer and held that the second charge has also been proved. The petitioner was, therefore, called upon to submit his representation. After considering the show cause filed by the petitioner the Disciplinary Authority upheld the tentative punishment decided to be awarded against the petitioner and order of his dismissal from the service.
(3.) THE petitioner filed a departmental appeal before the authority of the Zonal office of the Bank. The appellate authority, by passing a reasoned speaking order, upheld the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority and held that there did not appear any ground for modifying the penalty imposed upon the petitioner by the Disciplinary authority. Accordingly the appeal was dismissed. 1995 (6) SCC 157 and 2000 (3) SCC 443. 6. Mr. Kameshwar Prasad, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent -Bank on the other hand, submitted that the departmental proceeding conducted by the respondents is perfectly in accordance with law and there is no violation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as adequate opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that taking into consideration the gravity and seriousness of the charges levelled against the petitioner the punishment by way of dismissal from service is quite appropriate and the same cannot be said to be excessive. Learned counsel further submitted that the charges levelled against the petitioner have not even been specifically denied by him, rather, the petitioner tried to justify the charges levelled against him. 7. From perusal of the inquiry report it appears that the Enquiry Officer submitted his report after giving adequate opportunity to the petitioner to adduce both oral and documentary evidences. So far charge no. 1 is concerned, the Enquiry Officer held that the factum of charge is a matter of record inasmuch as the abusive language used by the petitioner was mentioned in the written statement which has not been denied by him. So far charge no. 2 is concerned, the Enquiry Officer, after appreciation of evidences, held that the second charge was partly proved. The Disciplinary Authority while issuing show cause notice recorded reasons of his' disagreement so far charge no. 2 is concerned and has referred the evidences to show that charge no. 2 was also wholly proved. The petitioner filed his show cause and, thereafter, by passing reasoned order, the Disciplinary Authority came to the conclusion that both the charges were fully proved. Consequently order of punishment was passed. 8. On going through the findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority, prima facie, I find some perversity in the said findings. Although the Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the finding of the Enquiry Officer on Charge No. II, it recorded its own finding appreciating the evidence in a different way by coming to the conclusion that the evidences proved in the inquiry are overwhelmingly against the petitioner. On such assumption the Disciplinary Authority held that Charge No. II has been proved, disagreeing with the finding of the Enquiry Officer that the said charge has been partly proved. However, the Disciplinary Authority has fully complied with the requirements of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Punjab National Bank and others vs. Kunj Bihari Misra (AIR 1998 SC 2713). For better appreciation para 19 of the said judgment is worth to be quoted hereinbelow : "The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the Inquiry authority on any article of charge then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the inquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the inquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority, which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer." 9. The next question that falls for Consideration is whether the punishment by way of dismissal from service is disproportionate and excessive to the charges levelled against the petitioner. For that I would like to quote herein below the charges served upon the petitioner which reads as under : "Charge NO.1 "That while submitting your written statement dated 23.11.92 in response to the show -cause Notice No. GM/DPS/R/ GENL/96 dated 8.11.92, you have used extremely derogatory language against your superior authority, i.e. the Asst. General Manager, Region I, in paragraph -2 of your letter under reference. The language used by you is as follows "you are blind and you have taken whimsical decision. The Enquiry Officer is a Bengali and the Disciplinary Authority is also a Bengali, hence both have connived to vindicate me. There is no' rule in the Bank and your whims is the rule. I have no faith in the Bank management etc:' Not only this, in para -3 of your aforesaid letter dated 23.11.92, you have gone to the extent of levelling malicious allegations to the highest authorities of the Bank in the following works "you are requested to inflict capital punishment on me and my whole salary should be snatched away and it should be given to S/Shri Sitaram, M.N. Goiporia and C.L. Khemeni etc. for needful, which will be 'in tune with your whims." Thus, your above act of use of extremely derogatory language against your superior authority including the highest authority of the Bank, is highly prejudicial to the interest of the Bank. Charge No. II "That on 2.12.92, while you were working as Teller at our Gumla Branch, around 12.00 Noon you entered into the chamber of the Branch Manager, Gumla Branch. You abused and threatened the Branch Manager, Shri U.K. Mitra in the following words "Hum Kya bole hai re sala chotta? tum kya samaghte ho re branch manager apne ap ko, tumko sala hum phar denga, Sab badmasi khatam kar denga. You further threatened end abused Shri U.K. Mitra; Branch Manager, Gumla Branch while leaving his chamber in the following words" Sala chor haramjada, dalal, tum badmashi karte ho, tumhara hum gard phar denga, Jab se aya ho badmasi karte ho" You have, thus, displayed riotous, disorderly and indecent behaviour in the premises of the Bank, which act on your part, is also highly prejudicial to the interest of the Bank." 10. Before analysing the circumstances under which such abusive language was alleged to have been used by the petitioner, I would like to refer the law laid' down by the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Kishan VS. Union of India and other (1995) 6 SCC 157. Their Lordships while considering a similar question observed : "It is next to be seen whether imposition of the punishment of dismissal from service is proportionate to the gravity of the imputation. When abusive language is used by anybody against a superior, it must be understood in the environment in which that person is situated and the circumstances surrounding the event that led to the use of abusive langauge. No strait -jacket formula could be evolved in adjudging whether the abusive language in the given circumstances would warrant dismissal from service. Each case has to be considered on its own facts. What was the nature of the abusive language used by the appellant was not stated:' 11. As noticed above in 1992 while the petitioner was working in the Bank as a clerk he was reverted from his post by way of punishment in a departmental proceeding. In that departmental proceeding the petitioner filed a written statement in which he has made some derogatory statement against his superiors. On such abusive language used in the written statement in the earlier departmental proceeding a fresh chargesheet was issued as charge no. I in the instant departmental proceeding. So far charge no. II is concerned it was categorically denied by the petitioner that while working as Teller he entered into the Chamber of the Branch Manager and abused and threatened him and displayed indecent behaviour. So far charge no. 1 is concerned it relates to the written statement filed in the earlier departmental proceeding which is a matter of record. So far charge no. II is concerted the Enquiry Officer in the finding recorded by him held that this charge has been partly proved the finding of the Enquiry Officer reads as under : "On analyzing the deposition of prosecution witnesses it is observed that there was some hot discussion between the employee and the Branch Manager on 2.12.92. Shri F. Kullu, P.w. 3 and Shri U.K. Mitra P.W. 4 have deposed that Shri Ram has used abusive language on 2.12.92. On perusing the discipline book the recording was not witnessed by any persons except Shri U.K. Mitra, Branch Manager. Shri U.K. Mitra P.w. 4 has deposed that there were three customers present at the time of incident. Though Shri U.K. Mitra stated that Shri Chandra Nath Prasad and Shri R.N. Tiwary were present while the incident took place, these two witnesses were produced as Defence witnesses. They have deposed that they were not aware of the incident. Those who were named by the P.w. 4 to substantiate the allegation have not corroborated the happenings. There were no material documentary evidence produced to conclude with certainty that the employee has used abusive language against the branch Manager. Though the charge sheeted employee refused the allegation of using un -parliamentary words against the Branch Manager he has admitted that he has murmured himself "Ye murga tanga jaisa sala keya hai" There are no material evidences and documentary proof which will substantiate the allegation beyond reasonable doubt, that the employee has used abusive language against the Branch Manager. However, there appears that a hot discussion had taken place on that day pertaining to the initial of the counter clerk in the savings Bank ac count withdrawal slip while making payment by the teller, viz. by Shri Ram." 12. As noticed above, although the Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the finding of the Enquiry Officer on charge no. II and has recorded his own finding but from perusal of the reasonings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority it appears that he has appreciated the evidences of the witnesses in different way and held that the evidences proved in the inquiry are overwhelmingly against the petitioner and as such charge no. II has been proved. 13. Admittedly in the earlier departmental proceeding in which the petitioner filed his written statement he was punished by way of reversion from his post to the lower post after rejecting the explanation given in the said written statement. Admittedly, thereafter on some abusive language used in the said written statement a second departmental proceeding was initiated by adding one more charge. These charges have been partly proved. It appears that it is because of the circumstances surrounding the events leading to the departmental proceedings one after another, the petitioner might have used such abusive language. In my opinion, therefore, dismissal of the petitioner from service would be disproportionate to the nature of the charges levelled against him. The Disciplinary Authority should re -consider the quantum of punishment to be imposed upon the petitioner taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case. 14. For the aforesaid reasons this writ application is allowed and the impugned order of punishment of the petitioner by way of dismissal from service is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Disciplinary Authority with a direction to reconsider the question relating to quantum of punishment other than dismissal from service and to pass a fresh order of punishment which must not be disproportionate to the charges levelled against the petitioner taking into consideration the observations made in this judgment.;