Employee Can't Be Expected To Disprove Charges In Departmental Enquiry; Management Must First Prove Misconduct: Allahabad High Court
The Allahabad High Court has held that in a departmental enquiry, the burden is on the management to first establish the charges and the foundational facts on which they rest, and the delinquent employee cannot be required to disprove allegations that have not been proved against him. The Court set aside the dismissal of a Punjab National Bank officer whose charges were premised on his...
The Allahabad High Court has held that in a departmental enquiry, the burden is on the management to first establish the charges and the foundational facts on which they rest, and the delinquent employee cannot be required to disprove allegations that have not been proved against him.
The Court set aside the dismissal of a Punjab National Bank officer whose charges were premised on his having worked as System Administrator, a fact which the Bank had failed to prove even before a civil court.
Justice Irshad Ali held,
“A delinquent employee's defence is required to be considered against the case established by the management. The burden does not shift merely because the employee has denied the allegations. The management must first establish the essential ingredients of the misconduct alleged.”
Petitioner joined Punjab National Bank as Clerk-cum-Cashier in 1978 and was promoted as Assistant Manager in 1987. In 1999, two FIRs alleging fraud and defalcation of bank funds were lodged against him, following which he was arrested and placed under suspension.
In 2002, he was served a charge-sheet alleging that while working as System Administrator at the Bank's Mahanagar and Vidhan Sabha Marg branches in Lucknow, he had reopened closed accounts under changed names, made unauthorised debits, misappropriated margin money and ATM funds and removed bank records.
Petitioner sought 48 documents for his defence, which were not supplied. On a writ petition filed by him, the High Court in 2012 directed that the documents be supplied or their inspection be permitted. Thereafter, several documents were declared unavailable, originals of the disputed photocopies were not produced and the Enquiry Officer refused to summon members of the Bank's balancing team as defence witnesses.
The Enquiry Officer held all the charges proved and the petitioner was dismissed from service on 01.11.2012. His departmental appeal was rejected on grounds that he had not brought any new facts to disprove the charges.
Before the High Court, petitioner pleaded that he was never appointed as System Administrator. It was submitted that the Bank had itself filed a civil suit against him in which the civil court held that the Bank had failed to prove that he ever worked as System Administrator, and the Bank's appeal against that decision was dismissed in 2013.
It was further submitted that under the Bank's own Handbook of Computerization of Branches, the post could only be given to an officer not below Scale-II, whereas petitioner was in Scale-I. It was argued that the charges were treated as proved from the outset and petitioner was expected to disprove them.
Counsel for the Bank submitted that petitioner had participated extensively in the enquiry and cross-examined the management witnesses, that the evidence supported his role as System Administrator and that the writ court could not re-appreciate evidence in disciplinary matters.
The Court observed that though it does not sit in appeal over findings of a disciplinary enquiry, this restraint cannot be extended to protect an enquiry which violates natural justice or rests on no evidence. It held that the petitioner's challenge was not a mere disagreement with appreciation of evidence but challenged the very basis on which the proceedings were built.
On the System Administrator issue, the Court held that though res judicata could not be mechanically applied to disciplinary proceedings, the disciplinary authorities were bound to consider the effect of the civil court's decision.
“The significance of the civil-court judgment is that the Bank had previously failed to establish, before a competent court, the very foundational fact which subsequently became the premise for attributing duties and lapses to the petitioner in the disciplinary proceedings.”
Noting that the Bank produced no appointment order and none of the four management witnesses spoke of one, the Court held,
“The management was required to establish the foundational fact through evidence. The burden could not be shifted upon the petitioner to establish that he was not occupying a post which the management itself had failed to establish that he occupied.”
It held that the charges built on the duties of a System Administrator, including unauthorised use of the related user ID and password, required independent proof, which was not shown.
Regarding the documents, the Court held that where the management relies on documents and the employee disputes their genuineness and seeks the originals, the demand cannot be treated as a mere technicality, particularly when the High Court had already directed their supply. It noted that one of the accounts allegedly reopened by petitioner had been closed in February 1994, months before he joined the Mahanagar Branch in October 1994.
In the charge of misappropriating Rs. 14,500/- of margin money, the person who allegedly handed over the amount was never examined, while the record itself showed that the amount was credited to that person's account and the loan was sanctioned, observed the Court.
“The existence of an irregular entry or transaction in a Bank record is not, by itself, proof that the petitioner personally committed the alleged act.”
The Court held that by rejecting the appeal for want of new facts from petitioner, the appellate authority had misplaced the burden of proof. It further held that the disciplinary authority had adopted the enquiry report without dealing with petitioner's objections.
Distinguishing the judgments relied upon by the Bank, the Court held that the rule of restraint in disciplinary matters applies where misconduct is established through a lawful process, and that the question of proportionality of punishment cannot arise without a sustainable finding of misconduct.
“Limited judicial review does not mean absence of judicial review where the fundamental requirements of a fair disciplinary process have not been satisfied.”
Declining to remit the matter for a fresh enquiry in view of the multiple defects and the long pendency of the proceedings, the Court set aside the dismissal order and the appellate order. It directed that petitioner be treated as continuing in service without any break, with consequential benefits including pay fixation, increments and seniority, and payment of monetary benefits after adjustment of amounts already paid, within three months.
Case Title: Mangnoo Jha v. Punjab National Bank Through Chairman Cum Managing Director