Allahabad High Court
Disciplinary Authority / Assistant ... vs Rabindra Kumar on 4 April, 2024
Author: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:58586-DB Court No. - 40 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 296 of 2024 Appellant :- Disciplinary Authority / Assistant General Manager Oad Local Head Office State Bank Of India And 3 Others Respondent :- Rabindra Kumar Counsel for Appellant :- Sumit Kakkar Counsel for Respondent :- Indra Raj Singh Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.
1. Heard Shri Sumit Kakkar, learned counsel for the appellants and Shri Indra Raj Singh, learned counsel for petitioner-respondent.
2. Present writ petition has been preferred assailing the validity of the judgment and order dated 1.2.2024 passed in Writ-A No.4080 of 2022 (Rabindra Kumar v. Disciplinary Authority/ Assistant General Manager (O.A.D.) & Ors.), the operative portion of which, for ready reference, is quoted as under:-
"............28. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the above said matters, the issue is identical to that of issue involved in the present writ petition.
29. Even in the above said matters, the respondents have not been able to establish the allegations of impersonation against the petitioner and based on the opinion of an expert, punishment order was passed against the petitioner which was set aside only on the ground that opinion of the handwriting expert was required to have been viewed and considered along with other materials available on record. Unless it is supported by any other material or evidence, that the petitioner has not been appeared in the examination, only based on the opinion of expert, he cannot be dismissed from service as reasonable opportunity has to be given to the delinquent and accordingly, the impugned orders are contrary to procedure.
30. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has vehemently opposed the writ petition and submitted that the petitioner cannot take such plea in the present petition as the respondents have implemented the order passed by the Hon'ble Court in Writ-A No. 48511 of 2016, wherein liberty has been granted to the respondents to proceed against the petitioner afresh after giving him an opportunity of examination and cross-examination of Sri R. Krishna during the inquiry and lead whatever evidence he may want to contradict the report of handwriting expert Sri R.Krishna. The said directions have became final and as per orders passed by this Court, respondents have given several opportunities to the petitioner to cross-examine the said R. Krishna.
31. Despite giving opportunity on several occasion i.e. 13.01.2020, 27.07.2020 and 27.01.2021, petitioner has not chosen to cross-examine Sri R. Krishna, left with no option the inquiry Officer has submitted his report. Hence, the inquiry report submitted by the inquiry officer on 27.01.2021 was in accordance with directions issued by this court in Writ-A No. 48511 of 2016. In the said circumstances, the petitioner cannot take contrary stand and raised objection with regard to the handwriting expert of Sri R. Krishna. The said ground is not available to the petitioner in view of the direction issued by this Court in the above said writ petition.
32. Further, the respondents have considered the entire documents while passing the final orders and as per the observations made in the final order, it clearly discloses that before passing the orders, the respondents have verified the entire records which includes both records pertaining to the examination centre as well as interview Board. He further submits that the Appellate Authority has considered the appeal filed by the petitioner and has taken the each and every ground for consideration and after verifying the documents, the Appellate Authority has also came to the conclusion that there are no ground raised by the petitioner, hence the same has been dismissed.
33. In view of the above, there is no ground to interfere in this matter as authorities have followed procedure contemplated under the procedure and also ample opportunity has been given to the petitioner before passing the orders, hence the writ petition may be dismissed.
34. Considering the submissions made by both the counsels and also perusal of the records, though liberty was granted to the respondents in Writ-A No. 48511 of 2016 vide order dated 24.04.2018 but the respondents could not follow observations made by this Court in the said judgement where this Court had specifically observed that whether there was any photo of missing or not, was a matter which could have been examined by the Inquiry Officer at least during the course of inquiry.
35. On perusal of the inquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Officer on 27.01.2021, it appears that this aspect was not at all considered. Further, it is observed that though it may not have been possible in the invisilative / examination centre itself but nothing of its kind was done and inquiry report was based entirely upon the report of R. Krishna, the handwriting expert who was not even a registered handwriting expert. These, observations were also not considered by the Inquiry Officer while conducting the re-inquiry. Further, it is observed that the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority have also not considered the various aspects of the matter which indicates that Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority also required to consider the other aspects not only the inquiry report and the report submitted by the expert while imposing penalty but in the instant case, perusal of the impugned order dated 29.11.2021 clearly shows that the Disciplinary Authority has not at all considered any other relevant material while imposing the penalty except giving the opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the R. Krishna who is so-called handwriting expert. Neither Disciplinary Authority nor Appellate Authority has considered the other aspects while imposing the punishment vide order dated 29.11.2021.
36. Further, as observed by the Division Bench of this Court in Vijay Pal and 22 others v. Union of India and 3 others (supra) that opinion of the expert was required to have been viewed and considered along with the other materials available on record. In the event of impersonation mismatch of handwriting / thumb impression of the petitioner became unsustainable unless supported by any other material or evidence that the petitioner had not appear in the examination or had not filled the application form.
37. Even in the instant case, the respondents have failed to corroborate the expert report along with the other material available on record and it clearly discloses that the respondents have not even chosen to verify or to substantiate that the petitioner had not participated in the examination centre except having an expert opinion that too from non-registered expert.
38. In view of the said circumstances, the respondents have passed the impugned orders solely depending on the report submitted by one R. Krishna, who is handwriting expert, without verifying the other material and without establishing that the petitioner has not appeared in the examination.
39. In view of the same, the impugned orders dated 29.11.2021 and also the Appellate Authority order dated 27.01.2022 are set aside, remanding the matter to afresh inquiry by sending all the relevant documents to the forensic laboratory and also conducting a detailed inquiry by calling all the relevant records and examining the concerned persons and take a proper action, accordingly.
40. In the result, the writ petition is disposed of."
3. After considering the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties and upon perusing the impugned judgment and order, we notice that the same has been rendered by the learned Single Judge with cogent and justifiable reasons. In an Intra-Court Special Appeal, no interference is usually warranted unless palpable infirmities or perversities are noticed on a plain reading of the impugned judgment and order. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, on a plain reading of the impugned judgment and order, we do not notice any such palpable infirmity or perversity. As such, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned judgment and order.
4. In view of above, the special appeal sans merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 4.4.2024 SP/