The Court examined a writ petition against an order reducing the petitioner's pay by five stages due to misconduct. Finding no violation of natural justice and concluding the punishment was not disproportionate given the petitioners past record, the petition was dismissed.
Rule discharged and no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELATE CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.3832 OF 1999
Shri C.V. Sasidharan
Occ: Service
Residing at 217/5821
Paul Nagar, R.N.Narkar Marg
Ghatkopar East, Mumbai-400 075. ..Petitioner
Vs.
1. Industrial Development
Bank of India
I.D.B.I. Tower, Cuffe Parade
Bombay-400 005.
2. Mr. J.H. Punjabi
Dy. General Manager
I.D.B.I. Tower Cuffe
Parade, Mumbau-400 005. ..Respondents
-----
Mr.C.V.Sasidharan, Petitioner in person
Mr.M.P.S.Rao with Mr. Mihir Madi &
Ms. Deepali Wakde i/b. M/s. K.Ashar and Co.
for Respondent Nos.1 & 2.
CORAM: F.I. REBELLO &
S.P. KUKDAY, JJ.
DATE: 26TH APRIL, 2005.
JUDGMENT (PER F.I.REBELLO,J.)
. Considering the order of 9th March, 2005 the
Petitioner was allowed to appear in person.
Petitioner has submitted his arguments in the form
of replies filed before this Court.
2. The present challenge by the Petitioner is
to the punishment imposed pursuant to the
Disciplinary Proceedings initiated against the
Petitioner by the Respondent No.1. Pursuant to the
Disciplinary Proceedings the Disciplinary Authority
2
by way of punishment has directed reduction in the
pay of the Petitioner by five stages. It is this
order which is the subject matter of the present
Petition.
3. We have heard learned Counsel for the
Respondent. From the records and as submitted to us
the following facts emerge:-
. On 17th September, 1990 the Petitioner was
issued a show-cause notice for tampering with the
Muster Roll. The Petitioner was there after absent
between the period from 11th September, 1990 to 26th
September, 1990. A show-cause notice was issued to
him on 31st December, 1990. Petitioner filed a
reply on 4th June, 1991. A chargesheet was issued
to the Petitioner on 4th March, 1991. On account of
representation by the Petitioner a de novo Enquiry
was ordered. Pursuant to the enquiry in respect of
both the charges an order came to be passed by the
Competent Authority on 15th July, 1997 imposing
punishment of reduction in the pay scale by three
increments.
4. On 11th July, 1991 the Petitioner was
charghesheeted consequent on his rude behaviour with
Senior Officers. Another notice was issued for acts
of misconduct on 22nd August, 1991. The Petitioner
3
was chargesheted for the misconducts as alleged by
Chargesheets dated 22nd August, 1991 and 8th
November, 1991. On 28th April, 1993 the Enquiry
Officer found the Petitioner guilty in respect of
both the charges. On 29th June, 1993 the Enquiry
Officer submitted his report. Pursuant to the
findings an opportunity was given to the Petitioner.
The Competent Authority imposed punishment of
reduction of five increments in the pay scale of the
Petitioner by order dated 16th September, 1993. The
Petitioner preferred an appeal against the said
order which was rejected on 18th August, 1994. It
is this which is the subject matter of the present
Petition.
5. We have considered the submissions made on
behalf of the Petitioner. A reply has been filed on
behalf of Respondent dated 30th December, 1999. An
additional affidavit has been filed by Mr. K.P.
Nair, Deputy General Manager dated 8th April, 2005.
When the matter came up before this Court on 12th
January, 2000 while issuing Rule this Court noted
the contentions raised on behalf of the Respondents
that the Petitioner was not doing his work. On
behalf of the Petitioner a statement was made that
the Petitioner is working and shall work. The
Petitioner was called upon to file undertaking.
Such undertaking was filed. It is the Respondent’s
4
contention that inspite of the undertaking, the
Petitioner has not been doing his work sincerely and
various acts have been pointed out. It is also
pointed out that on account of complaint filed by an
Employees to the Ghatkopar Police Station the
Petitioner was arrested on 3rd November, 2004 and
produced before the Court on 4th November, 2004 and
he was granted bail. Considering Rule 43 of Staff
Rules the Petitioner is under suspension
. We really are not concerned with the same
except to examine and as to whether the punishment
imposed is harsh. In the instant case Petitioner
has been unable to show that enquiry conducted was
in violation of the principles of natural justice
and fair play and/or the rules. Once that be the
case it will not be possible to interfere on that
count. The findings of the Enquiry Officer or
findings of the facts which have been recorded after
giving Petitioner an opportunity. It would
therefore, not be possible to interfere with the
findings of the Enquiry Officer as upheld by the
Competent Authority that the Petitioner is guilty of
the acts of misconduct alleged and proved. Petition
has been filed to show that the findings are
perverse.
6. The only question that remains is whether
5
the punishment can be said to be disproportionate to
the misconduct alleged. In the instant case the
Petitioner had earlier been chargesheeted and had
been found guilty and punishment imposed. This is
the second time the Petitioner was found guilty for
acts of misconduct. The punishment imposed is in
the nature of reducing the Petitioner’s salary. We
do not find considering the facts of misconduct
alleged and proved and considering the past record
of the Petitioner that the punishment imposed can be
said to be disproportionate and arbitrary.
7. For the reasons aforesaid we find no merits
in the Petition. Accordingly Rule discharged. In
the circumstances there shall be no order as to
costs.
(F.I.REBELLO,J.)
(S.P. KUKDAY,J.)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the imposition of reduction in pay by five stages as punishment for misconduct is disproportionate and arbitrary.
Whether the enquiry conducted was in violation of the principles of natural justice and fair play.
Whether the findings of guilt recorded by the Enquiry Officer are perverse.
Shri C.V. Sasidharan
Industrial Development Bank of India
Mr. J.H. Punjabi
F.I. Rebello
S.P. Kukday
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court