Writ petition challenging dismissal appointment due to pension loss. Single point raised regarding procedural irregularity in passing punishment order before show cause deadline. Court found petitioner voluntarily appeared earlier, no illegality or prejudice caused, petition dismissed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 6145 of 2009
William Minz, S/o late Joseph Minz, r/o Village Parkala, PO and PS Kurdeg, District Simdega … … Petitioner
Versus
CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
--For the Petitioner : Mr. Shivam Sahay, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
Through Video Conferencing
08 /09.02.2022 Heard Mr. Shivam Sahay, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioner.
2. Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Bank.
3. This writ petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 22.05.2008 whereby the Chief Manager – cum – Disciplinary Authority of the respondent Bank has been pleased to punish the petitioner by bringing him down to lower stage in scale by two stages with immediate effect. Further relief has been prayed seeking a direction upon the respondents to compute the retiral dues, arrears of leave encashment and other consequential benefits including the pension of the petitioner after setting aside the office order dated 22.5.2008.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner while challenging the impugned order of punishment has raised only one point. During the course of argument, he has referred to Annexure – 2 by which the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and he submits that as per the show cause notice itself, the petitioner was to show cause by 23.05.2008 and was also to be given personal hearing at 11 a.m. on the same day regarding nature of proposed punishment. He submits that the impugned order has been passed on 22.05.2008 prior to the date fixed for the show cause.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand has opposed the prayer and submitted that at the request of the petitioner,
2
the personal hearing was given on 22.05.2008 itself and his required representation was also submitted on 21.05.2008 as is apparent from the impugned order itself and accordingly there is no illegality in passing the impugned order on 22.05.2008. He submits that the writ petition be dismissed.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the only point raised by the petitioner is that as per the show cause notice, the petitioner was to show cause by 23.05.2008 and was to be given personal hearing on the same day, but the impugned order has been passed on 22.05.2008 itself.
7. Upon perusal of the impugned order, it has been recorded that the petitioner had appeared before the Disciplinary Authority for personal hearing on 22.05.2018 itself as requested by him and submitted the authority to review the proposed punishment in view of his representation dated 21.05.2008 and brief submitted by the defence representative on his behalf. The petitioner has not disputed the aforesaid facts recorded in the impugned order itself. The respondents have highlighted this fact in the counter affidavit also, but no rejoinder has been filed to the counter affidavit.
8. It appears that both the dates for filing the show cause as well as personal hearing was fixed as 23.05.2008 at 11 a.m. but at the request of the petitioner himself who appears before the authority on 22.05.2008 and had filed his representation on 21.05.2008 and a defence representative had also appeared on behalf of the petitioner, therefore, the required hearing and filing of show cause stood complied on 21.05.2008 / 22.05.2008 and therefore, it is apparent that the impugned order has been passed on 22.05.2008 after considering the show cause and after hearing the petitioner.
9. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court finds that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner and no illegality has been committed while passing the impugned order by the concerned authority on 22.05.2008 instead of 23.05.2008.
10. In view of the aforesaid findings, this Court does not find any merits in the writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Saurav
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned order of punishment passed on 22.05.2008 was illegal as the show cause notice dated earlier fixed the hearing for 23.05.2008.
William Minz
Punjab National Bank
Anubha Rawat Choudhary
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
