Court holds inquiry unfair for non-supply of key documents, non-production of originals, denial of defence witnesses, and failure to prove that the employee was ever posted as System Administrator
The Allahabad High Court has set aside the dismissal of a Punjab National Bank officer, ruling that the departmental inquiry against him was fundamentally unfair and unsupported by reliable evidence.
Justice Irshad Ali held that the bank failed to supply relevant documents despite repeated requests and earlier court directions, did not produce original records of disputed documents, denied the petitioner’s request to examine material defence witnesses, and proceeded on an unproved assumption that he had served as System Administrator. The Court said these defects went to the root of the inquiry and violated principles of natural justice.
The petitioner, Mangnoo Jha, had challenged the dismissal order dated November 1, 2012, and the appellate order dated March 27, 2014. He argued that the charges of financial irregularity were based on vague allegations, photocopies of records, and witnesses who had no direct knowledge of the transactions. He also pointed out that a civil court had already held that the bank failed to establish that he had ever worked as System Administrator.
The Court found merit in these submissions. It noted that the bank’s own handbook suggested that a System Administrator could be appointed only from officers not below Scale-II, whereas the petitioner was in Scale-I. No appointment or posting order was produced. The Court further observed that several charges were built on this unestablished foundational fact, making the disciplinary findings unsustainable.
The judgment also criticizes the conduct of the inquiry officer and the disciplinary authority. According to the Court, the inquiry officer relied on disputed photocopies without producing originals, ignored relevant cross-examination, and refused material defence witnesses without adequate justification. The disciplinary authority, meanwhile, mechanically accepted the inquiry report, while the appellate authority rejected the appeal on the flawed reasoning that the petitioner had failed to bring fresh material to disprove the charges.
Justice Irshad Ali held that the case was not one of a mere procedural lapse but of a serious denial of a fair hearing. The Court concluded that the findings were based on an insufficient evidentiary foundation and that the petitioner had been prejudiced in defending himself.
As a result, the dismissal and appellate orders were quashed. The Court directed that the petitioner be treated as continuing in service without break, with continuity of service and all consequential benefits, including pay fixation, increments, seniority, and admissible monetary benefits. The bank has been asked to complete the exercise within three months of production of a certified copy of the judgment.
Bottom Line :
Departmental enquiry against bank officer was vitiated where relevant documents were not supplied despite earlier High Court directions, originals of disputed documents were not produced, material witnesses were not examined, defence witnesses were denied, and the foundational fact that employee was working as System Administrator was not proved; dismissal and appellate orders were set aside with continuity of service and consequential benefits.
Statutory provision(s): Constitution of India, 1950 Article 226, Punjab National Bank Officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1977 Regulations 4(j), 6, 17, 20
Mangnoo Jha v. Punjab National Bank, (Allahabad)(Lucknow) : Law Finder Doc id # 2981320
