Blog

Writ petition challenging the order of penalty of removal of service dismissed on less merit- Jharkhand high court

An instant writ petition was filed by the petitioner challenging the order of penalty of removal of service of petitioner from the post of Circle Head, Punjab National Bank, Mumbai City and disqualification for future employment. The writ petition was heard and dismissed by a single judge bench of HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE Dr. S. N. PATHAK in the case of Sanjay Kumar Prasad versus Punjab national bank and Ors. (W. P. (S) No. 3326 of 2020)

The crux of the case is that regular departmental proceedings were initiated against the petitioner who was on the post of Circle Head in Punjab National Bank and three charges were leveled against the petitioner under regulation 6 of Punjab National Bank Officer Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1977. The petitioner replied to these charges and the committee found some charges proved and some unproved further the petitioner was given another chance to reply to the charges and after this the committee passed a penalty and with the major penalty of removal from service, which shall not be a disqualification for future employment, in terms of Regulation 4(i) of the PNB Officer Employees (D &A) Regulations, 1977 further the petitioner applied in appellate court against this decision and the court rejected the appeal. the present writ petition is filed against this decision.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits against the order of removal and on the territorial issue that the territorial jurisdiction depends upon attending facts and circumstances of a particular case and the petitioner has contested his appeal from Ranchi and proceedings of appeal is also part of departmental proceedings hence the cause of action lies in Ranchi and is under the jurisdiction of this court. the counsel submitted the case of Navinchandra N. Majithia Vs. The state of Maharashtra, reported in (2000) 7 SCC 640 and Shanti Devi Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (2020) 10 SCC 766 to buttress his submissions. the counsel further submits that the order of removal has no ground as The fraud took place on account of system failure as the Bank could not envisage such fraud and no system was developed to detect such fraud and the petitioner being the circle head was made a scapegoat in the case and Learned senior counsel further assails that the impugned orders deserve to be quashed and set aside on the ground of parity itself.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the bank submits that No cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Jharkhand and hence, this Court does not have jurisdiction to decide the writ petition and also submits that the Bank has taken preliminary objection of maintainability of this writ petition, as no cause of action or part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of the State of Jharkhand and relies on the judgment of Oil and Natural Gas Commission Vs. Utpal Kumar Basu & Ors. reported in (1994) 4 SCC 711 and demands to dismiss the writ petition for having no territorial jurisdiction and Learned counsel submits that there is no procedural irregularity pointed out by the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the present case and it is a clear case of loss of confidence on account of the petitioner jeopardizing the Bank’s interest and hence, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

The learned court decides that the original order was made at Mumbai, but communications were made with the petitioner at his parental residence at Ranchi. Therefore, the part of the cause of action has arisen in the State of Jharkhand, and as such the High Court of Jharkhand has jurisdiction and the petitioner did not observe due diligence and did not follow the guidelines of the bank and authorities and because of which the fraud was committed. This court finds that the petitioner has violated regulations 3(1) & 3 (3) read with Regulation 4(i) of the PNB Officer Employees’ (D&A) Regulations, 1977, and dismissed the writ petition for having no merit.

Click here to read the Judgment 

Judgment reviewed by Naveen Sharma