Petitioner challenged an order reducing his pay scale by two stages for refusing to feed cash in ATM without a security guard. The court held the punishment was not disproportionate and dismissed the writ petition.
The writ petition seeking quashing of the reduction in pay scale order was 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.
C.W.P. No. 13089 of 2012 [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No. 13089 of 2012 (O&M) Date of decision: 1.8.2012
Hanuman Parsad Gupta
.. Petitioner
v.
State Bank of Patiala and another
.. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL
Present: Mr. Vinod S. Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner.
Rajesh Bindal J.
The petitioner has approached this court seeking quashing of the order dated 17.5.2011 (Annexure P-5), whereby penalty has been imposed upon the petitioner bringing him down to lower stage in the pay scale by two stages with cumulative effect and the order dated 24.12.2011 passed by the appellate authority.
Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner is working as Head Cashier in State Bank of Patiala at Bhiwani. He was instructed by the Branch Manager to feed cash in the ATM installed in the Branch on 14.7.2010, however, he refused to do that on the plea that Security Guard is not there. On account of dereliction of duty, charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 5.10.2010. Considering the reply filed by the petitioner to be not satisfactory, Enquiry Officer was appointed. During the course of enquiry, the petitioner admitted that he had refused to feed cash, however, it was for the reason that he had asked the Branch Manager to provide him Security Guard. It was admitted by him that prior to that, he had been feeding cash in the ATM without any guard. Finding him guilty on that
C.W.P. No. 13089 of 2012 [2]
account, the disciplinary authority imposed punishment of bringing the petitioner down to lower stage in the pay scale by two stages with cumulative effect in terms of Clause 6(e) of the Memorandum of Settlement of Disciplinary Action Procedure for Workmen signed on 10.4.2002. The petitioner preferred appeal against the aforesaid order. The same was also dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as there had been instances of looting of cash during the course of feeding in the ATMs, to be safe the petitioner requested for providing him the Security Guard. He further submitted that he had asked for the instructions from the Manager only to be sure about his duty and also in case some untoward incident takes place, he may not be held responsible for violating any instructions of the bank. The punishment imposed is disproportionate to the charge. It was an isolated incident in the service career of the petitioner.
After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. It is admitted by the petitioner himself that prior to the incident in question, he had been feeding cash in the ATMs. Meaning thereby he was well aware of the instructions pertaining thereto. In the circumstances, there was no reason for him to have refused feeding of cash in the ATM, which was located in the premises of the bank, where Guard as such may not be required. Discipline has to be maintained during the course of employment. In the present case, the petitioner had refused to perform his duty for which punishment inflicted cannot be said to be disproportionate.
Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.
( Rajesh Bindal ) Judge
1.8.2012 mk
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the disciplinary authority acted with jurisdiction, authority, and legality while imposing punishment for refusal to perform duty.
If the petitioner is well aware of instructions, is refusal to feed cash in ATM within bank premises considered disproportionately punished.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Hanuman Parsad Gupta
State Bank of Patiala
Rajesh Bindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
