LI Network
Published on: October 27, 2023 at 11:20 IST
The Jharkhand High Court quashed an order of termination passed against a bank employee in 2015, terming the bank’s enquiry report ‘perverse’ for failing to supply relevant documents to the accused employee. The court also found the punishment of dismissal from service as ‘too harsh.’
This decision came in response to a Writ Petition filed by Devendra Prasad Yadav, who served as a Credit Officer at the Ranchi Main Branch of Jharkhand Gramin Bank.
The case revolved around allegations of fraudulent activities within the bank. Initially, the bank’s manager filed two FIRs related to these activities, implicating three individuals. However, the petitioner was not initially named in the first FIR. A second FIR was subsequently filed by the same manager, alleging improper crediting to an account associated with the petitioner.
The bank issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner, seeking an explanation. Unfortunately, due to the unavailability of essential documents from the bank, the petitioner could not respond within the given time frame. Consequently, he was arrested and suspended by the bank.
Another show-cause notice was issued, but once again, the petitioner couldn’t provide a response due to the absence of necessary documents. Subsequently, the bank initiated departmental proceedings against the petitioner and served a charge sheet. However, crucial documents required for a proper defense were not provided to the petitioner.
The departmental inquiry ultimately found the petitioner guilty of the charges, leading him to challenge the decision in the High Court.
The petitioner argued that the actions of the bank were illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction. He contended that most of the charges against him were related to transactions that occurred ten years prior. During the departmental proceedings, the petitioner requested the Production Officer to provide documents related to those old transactions, but this request was denied, claiming that the documents were not available in the branch.
The petitioner claimed that the failure to supply relevant documents had seriously prejudiced his ability to defend himself.
On the other hand, the respondents argued that they had issued a memorandum seeking an explanation from the petitioner, which he responded to. However, they were not satisfied with his response, given the gravity of the alleged offense and the potential for substantial financial losses. Consequently, the respondents decided to initiate departmental proceedings, during which the petitioner was found guilty of the charges and subsequently dismissed.
Regarding the issue of the second show-cause notice, the respondents argued that the enquiry report was made available to the petitioner, implying that there was no violation of the principles of natural justice. The Appellate Authority also found that the petitioner was not deprived of natural justice, and no decision was prejudiced against him.
Taking into account the arguments presented by both parties, the Court underscored the established legal principle that when considering disciplinary actions, especially dismissal, a second show-cause notice and a copy of the investigation report must be issued. Without following this procedure and allowing the individual an opportunity to respond to the allegations through a second show-cause notice, any imposition of punishment, including dismissal, lacks legal validity.
The Court noted that the non-supply of relevant documents had seriously prejudiced the petitioner, a fact acknowledged by the respondents. The Court emphasized that when a specific document is relied upon by the accused, it should be provided to them to seek a response. In the case of non-supply, the enquiry report is deemed perverse.
The Court also took into account the petitioner’s unblemished 27-year service career and found that the respondents had failed to consider this when imposing the major punishment of dismissal. Furthermore, it was acknowledged that the second show-cause notice was not served along with the enquiry report, which was in violation of the procedure.
Consequently, the Court found the punishment of dismissal to be too severe and quashed the impugned orders. It remitted the matter back to the respondents for reconsideration of the petitioner’s case for a lesser punishment.
Case Title: Devendra Prasad Yadav v. Jharkhand Gramin Bank and Ors.
