Allowed

Satbir Singh Chadha v. Punjab and Sindh Bank and Ors.

Delhi HC3 May 2018W.P.(C)/12694/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Judge upheld a Writ petition against a bank employee sentenced to dismissal for professional misconduct. Since the evidence linking the petitioner to the alleged misconduct was deemed insufficient, the penalties were set aside, though the petitioner was denied full reinstatement benefits due to prior retirement.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the orders of 25.09.2006, 30.04.2008, and 16.12.2008; directed the Bank to grant 50% of pay and allowances as per the Allahabad High Court order but denied arrears from dismissal date to sup

Satbir Singh Chadha Vs Punjab and Sindh Bank… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Delhi HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

¶2

Date of Decision: May 03, 2018

¶3

W.P.(C) 12694/2009 & CMs No. 4586/2012 & 2945/2018

¶4

SATBIR SINGH CHADHA ..... Petitioner Through: Mr. Ashok Bhalla and Mr. Munish Talwar, Advocates

¶5

versus

¶6

PUNJAB AND SIND BANK AND ORS. ..... Respondents Through: Mr. Rajat Arora and Mr. Niraj Kumar, Advocates

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

¶8

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

¶9

Petitioner was a Branch Manager in Punjab and Sind Bank, Gumti No. 5, Kanpur and he alongwith G.S. Duggal who was Manager (Loans) in the same bank, was departmentally proceeded against on the charges of not obtaining Annexures I and II in terms of Circular of 4^th December, 2002 from the borrower and the guarantor and had failed to ensure that before releasing the loan, trained technical staff is available at the hospital, to operate the machine and after sales service is available. More serious allegation leveled against petitioner and G.S. Duggal was of being hand-in-glove in obtaining processing fee of `3750/- and debiting the said amount to the loan account of the borrower on account of 3 per cent processing fee and of also obtaining the said amount in cash.

¶10

W.P. (C) 12694/2009

¶11

Page 1 of 4

¶12

Consequent upon departmental inquiry, petitioner and G.S. Duggal were inflicted the penalty of dismissal from service. Statutory appeal and the review filed by petitioner and G.S.Duggal yielded no result. It is a matter of record that G.S.Duggal had challenged the penalty inflicted upon him by way of a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court and a Division Bench of the said Court, vide order of 6^th February, 2012, had set aside the penalty of dismissal with direction to reinstate G.S.Duggal in service with all consequential benefits.

¶13

Aforesaid order was unsuccessfully challenged by respondentBank by way of Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. The Enquiry Officer in his report of 30^th June, 2006 had relied upon evidence of S.S. Nayar, Sr.Manager, ZO, Lucknow and Sh.H.K.Gulati, Sr.Manager, B.O., Gumti No.5, Kanpur to conclude that the first charge of not obtaining Annexures I and II stood proved but the second charge of obtaining 3% processing fee was not proved. However, Disciplinary Authority vide its order dated 25^th September, 2006 (Annexure P-18) has relied upon letter of 2^nd December, 2005 written by Santokh Singh, Zonal Manager to the General Manager (Vigilance) regarding complainant- Dr.Atul Kapoor informing him on 18^th November, 2005 about his paying `18,000/- to aforesaid G.S.Duggal.

¶14

The precise submission of learned counsel for petitioner is that the said letter of 2^nd December, 2005 purportedly written by Santokh Singh, Zonal Manager, has not been duly proved on record and the complainant has not stepped into the witness box and the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court has already held that the charge of payment of amount in cash

¶15

W.P. (C) 12694/2009

¶16

Page 2 of 4

¶17

by Dr. Atul Kapoor does not stand proved. Thus, it is submitted that the case of petitioner is at par with the case of G.S.Duggal and so, the penalty inflicted upon petitioner deserves to be set aside and since petitioner has superannuated about five years ago, therefore, the consequential benefits ought to be granted to petitioner.

¶18

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent-Bank supports the impugned order and relies upon Supreme Court’s decision in Union of India vs. P.Gunashekaran AIR 2015 SC 545 to submit that this Court in exercise of Writ Jurisdiction will not re-appreciate the evidence or go into the inadequacy of the evidence and since the charge leveled against petitioner stands proved from the evidence of S.S.Nayar and H.K.Gulati, therefore, impugned penalty order deserves to be maintained.

¶19

Upon hearing and on perusal of impugned penalty order, the decision of 6^th February, 2012 of Allahabad High Court and material on record and the decision cited, I find that in the absence of evidence of Santokh Singh and the complainant, the charge leveled against petitioner could not be sustained. In fact, evidence on record does not establish any nexus between G. S. Duggal and petitioner. In the considered opinion of this Court, the case of petitioner is on better footing than the case of G. S. Duggal, whose penalty order has been already quashed.

¶20

In light of the aforesaid, the impugned order of 25^th September, 2006, appellate order of 30^th April, 2008 and order of 16^th December, 2008 of the reviewing authority are hereby set aside with direction to respondent-Bank to grant all consequential benefits to petitioner except the arrears of salary from the date of dismissal, till the date of

¶21

W.P. (C) 12694/2009

¶22

Page 3 of 4

¶23

superannuation. However, petitioner shall be entitled to 50% of the pay and allowances as already granted to G.S. Duggal by High Court of Allahabad.

¶24

With aforesaid directions, this petition and the applications stands disposed of.

¶25

(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE

¶26

MAY 03, 2018

¶27

¶28

W.P. (C) 12694/2009

¶29

Page 4 of 4

Satbir Singh Chadha v. Punjab and Sindh Bank and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satbir Singh Chadha v. Punjab and Sindh Bank and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Supriti Bishwas & Ors. Vs UOI & Ors.

Sarita Vs Registrar Cooperative Societie

Shashi Dua Vs Registrar Cooperative Societie

Uk Paints (Overseas) Ltd. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 20, New Delhi

Ruchir Mittal Vs Ministry of H.R.D. and Ors.

Ram Gopal Singh Vs State of NCT of Delhi & Anr.

Manmohan Sharma and Anr. Vs East Delhi Municipal Corporation through Commissioner

Ram Singh Vs D.T.C

Mohd Aliyas & Ors. Vs Reliance Insurance Co. Ltd.

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Md. Illiyas & Ors.

Sagar Pratap Singh Vs District and Session Judge Tis Hazari (Hqs) and Ors.

Sahida Perwin Zaman Vs Naheed Rubab Usmani & Anr.

Rimjhim Vs Food Corporation of India

Medical Council of India Vs National Commission for Scheduled Castes & Anr.