Gauhati High Court
Subhas Deka vs Central Bank Of India And Ors. on 20 November, 2007
Equivalent citations: 2007(4)GLT748
Author: Jasti Chelameswar
Bench: Jasti Chelameswar, A. Potsangbam
JUDGMENT Jasti Chelameswar, C.J.
1. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 08.12.2006 passed in Writ Petition (C) 6658/02, the unsuccessful petitioner preferred the present appeal.
2. The appellant/writ petitioner worked as Branch Manager in various branches of the Respondent Bank. While working as Branch Manager at Mangaldoi, he was kept under suspension by a communication dated 07.08.1999 pending disciplinary action. A Memorandum of Charges dated 23.12.1999 was served on the petitioner on29.12.1999, by which the appellant was called upon to submit written statement within 15 days from the date of receipt of the charge memo. The appellant chose not to file any written statement and thereafter an Inquiry Officer was appointed.
3. The Inquiry Officer commenced the enquiry. On 04.07.2000 the Inquiring Officer examined the appellant and enquired from him whether he would admit or deny all or any of the charges levelled against the petitioner. The appellant categorically denied all the charges levelled against him. Thereafter, some of the witnesses were examined in the enquiry proceeding. However, during the pendency of enquiry the appellant by a letter dated 18.10.2000 addressed to the Inquiry Officer admitted all the charges levelled against him. The relevant portion of the letter reads as follows:
While drawing your attention on the subject referred to above, I like to state that, after complete verification of documents against each charges levelled against me and also taking into account number of factors, today I have taken decision not to contest anymore in the proceedings that going on in the Silpukhuri Branch presently. Therefore, I have come to conclusion and decided to admit and confess all the charges that levelled against me. I like to confirm, in this context, that I have taken the decision not under any duress or under any influence of any other persons. I feel that my defence, although initially I denied and decided to contest, will now be quite weak and will not be able to withstand in the face of documentary evidence collected by the authority and which I lack.
I admit that I have done certain irregularities and certain acts which can not be backed or supported from any point of view although certain situation compelled me to do this. However, 1 like, emphatically, to clear and ascertain that never in any point of time I possessed or nurtured any malafied intention with an aim to benefit myself or my family directly or indirectly doing harm to my own institution that support my livelihood, though in certain cases it seems so. My only interest was to fetch maximum profit to the branch and more particularly in the age of NPAs. Now I understand that the path I took was wrong and though this may give some gain for some time, it may, eventually, affect the branch devastatingly. I, in real earnest, regret for this unwise act. Further in some cases I have been mislead and in fact cheated by the borrowers whom I trusted most.
Therefore, I have taken decision accordingly after deep consideration. Besides it will take considerable time to conclude and it is also an unproductive expenses that the Bank will have to bear during this hard time or survival for us all. Again it robs away my own mental peace and tranquility from which I like to be free now.
I am thankful to my authority for allowing me ample time and opportunity to defend myself in the name of natural justice. I am really thankful to you.
I now request you to please accept this confession and settle the matter early.
Thereupon the appellant was found guilty and major penalty of dismissal from service was imposed on the appellant.
4. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant unsuccessfully preferred an appeal to the department on various grounds including that the admission of guilt by his letter dated 18.10.2000 was obtained under 'duress'. In fact, a copy of the Memo of appeal is also placed before this Court. The relevant portion at para-9 of the said memo of appeal reads as follows:
9. That since the Inquiring Officer and the Presenting Officer found it difficult to prove the alleged involvement attributed against the delinquent they constantly threatened and exercised duresses on the delinquent to admit his guilt so that the Disciplinary Authority may dealt with the matter leniently and on 17.10.2000 the Enquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer, directed the delinquent and Paresh Ch. Das, DR to bring letters of admission of guilt. Accordingly the delinquent and DR presented the letters of admission of guilt. Both the Inquiring Officer and the Presenting Officer had gone through both the letters brought by the delinquent which would go to show that on the dictation of the Inquiry Officer, the reference under letter had been written in the ink "Le veiled against me vide letter No. 20: GUWA; RES : DLS : 226 : 99-2K : 343 dated 23rd Dec, 1999", and as such the alleged admission of guilt cannot be accepted as the basis of imposing penalty of dismissal from service when it was obtained under threat and duress and on this scope alone the entire proceeding vitiates and the order dated 24.7.2001 is liable to be set aside and quashed.
5. The appeal was rejected. The contention of the appellant that the letter dated 18.10.2000 was written by him under duress was also rejected. Thereafter, the appellant approached this Court by way of writ petition unsliccessfully and hence the present appeal.
6. Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant made two submissions, namely, (1) that the letter dated 18.10.2000 was obtained under "duress" and therefore it could not have been acted upon; and (2) that on true and proper construction of Regulation 6(4) and 6(8) of the Central Bank of India Officers Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976, it is only in a case where a delinquent employee admits his guilt in his written statement filed in response to the communication made by the Disciplinary Authority under Regulation 6(3), the obligation to conduct an enquiry is dispensed with, but if such an admission is made otherwise than in the written statement, the Disciplinary Authority is still obliged to conduct an enquiry and establish the guilt of the delinquent officer.
7. We regret our inability to accept the submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellant. Insofar as the first submission of the learned Counsel that the letter dated 18.10.2000 was obtained under "duress" is concerned, we have already noted the content of the letter and also the plea of the appellant in the Memo of appeal filed by him before the Bank. The content of the letter is very categoric that the appellant on examination of various documents and records sought to be proved against him came to the conclusion that it would not be profitable to contest the disciplinary proceeding. It is not a laconic expression of guilt, but an elaborate letter from the very tenor of which it can be seen that considerable application of mind went into the preparation of the letter. Secondly, from the Memo of appeal it appears that though the appellant chose to call the abovementioned letter as a letter obtained under duress, the content of the memo of appeal demonstrates to the contrary. Assuming that all the allegations made therein are true, that it was more of an inducement, which is said to have been responsible for the admission of guilt by the appellant, at any rate, both the appellate authority and the learned Single Judge declined to believe the plea of the appellant in this regard and we do not propose to re-open the issue as ultimately it is a question of fact.
8. Coming to the question of law, whether there any obligation on the part of the respondents to conduct an enquiry on the face of the abovementioned letter dated 18.10.2000, learned Counsel Mr. K.N. Choudhury has very vehemently submitted that in the light of the Division Bench judgment of this Court reported Manindra Chandra Dhar v. Tripura Road Transport Corporation and Ors. 2002 (1) GLT 518, the Respondents ought to have conducted the enquiry and established the guilt of the appellant and could not have found him guilty on the mere admission made by the appellant in his letter dated 18.10.2000.
9. First of all we would like to point out that the abovementioned decision was rendered in the context of provisions in the Central Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, particularly, Rule 14 thereof. No doubt, it was a case where the delinquent officer also did not file any written statement either admitting or denying the charges framed against him. Therefore, an enquiry was conducted. The Inquiry Officer, however, as required under the Rules, confronted the delinquent employee with the charges and called upon him to take a stand whether he would plead the guilt or not to the charges.' At that stage, the delinquent employee pleaded guilt to all the charges. Thereafter he was found guilty without any further enquiry and the punishment was awarded, which came to be challenged before this Court by way writ petition, which was dismissed. On appeal, the Division Bench reversed the judgment holding as follows:
7. We called upon Mr. Debnath to point out the provisions of Rule 14 of the Rules, 1965 under which the Inquiring Officer has been empowered to record admission of guilt to the charges by a Government servant but Mr. Debnath was unable to point out any such provision in Rule 14 of the Rules, 1965 except the Sub-rule (18) thereof in which it is provided that the Inquiring authority may, after the Government servant closes his case, and shall, if the Government servant has not examined himself, generally question him on the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence for the purpose of enabling the Government servant to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. A plain reading of the Sub-rule (18) of Rule 14 of the Rules, 1965 would show that the Inquiring Authority has been empowered to question the Government servant "on the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence" for the purpose of enabling the Government servant to explain any "circumstances appearing in the evidence against him". Thus, only after evidence is adduced and recorded by the Inquiry Authority in the inquiry, the Inquiring Authority has been empowered to call upon the Government servant to explain the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence and this provision has been made with a view to give an opportunity to such Government servant to explain those circumstances appearing against him in the evidence. In this present case, as indicated above, no evidence was recorded by the Inquiring Officer in the inquiry and therefore, the provision in Sub-rule (18) of Rule 14 of the Rules, 1965 was not attracted.
10. It is unfortunate that relevant provisions of the Central Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 were not brought to the notice of the Division Bench. Rule 14, Sub-rule (9) and (10) of the Rules read as follows:
(9) If the Government servant who has not admitted any of the articles of charge in his written statement of defence or has not submitted any written statement of defence, appears before the inquiring authority, such authority shall ask him whether he is guilty or has any defence to make and if he pleads guilty to any of the articles of charge, the inquiring authority shall record the plea, sign the record and obtain the signature of the Government servant thereon.
(10) The inquiring authority shall return a finding of guilt in respect of those articles of charge to which the Government servant pleads guilty.
11. A reading of above extract of sub-rule makes it abundantly clear that the Inquiring Officer was authorized to question the delinquent employee whether the employee pleads guilty or not and if the employee pleads guilt the Inquiring Officer is bound record the finding of guilt in respect of all those charges to which the delinquent employee pleads guilty. It is only in such case where the delinquent does not plead guilty the Inquiring Officer is obliged to conduct an enquiry and take evidence to determine whether the charges are established or not. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the above decision is per incuriam.
12. Coming to the Regulations of the Respondent Bank applicable to the appellant, Regulation 6(4) and 6(8) reads as follows:
6 (4) On receipt of the written statement of the officer employee, or if no such statement is received within the time specified, an enquiry may be held by the Disciplinary Authority itself, or if it considers it necessary so to do appoint under Sub-regulation (2) an Inquiring Authority for the purpose.
Provided that it may not be necessary to hold an inquiry in respect of the articles of charges admitted by the officer employee in his written statement but shall be necessary to record its findings on each such charge.
6(8) (a) The inquiring authority shall by notice in writing specify the day on which the officer employee shall appear in person before the inquiring authority.
(b) On the date fixed by the inquiring authority, the officer employee shall appear before the inquiring authority at the time, place and date specified in the notice.
(c) The inquiring authority shall ask the officer employee whether he pleads guilty or has any defence to make and if he pleads guilty to any of the articles of charge, the inquiring authority shall, record the plea, sign the record and obtain the signature of the officer employee concerned thereon.
(d) The inquiring authority shall return a finding of guilt in respect of those articles of charge to which the officer employee concerned pleads guilty.
13. These regulations are, in substance, identical with the Central Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 and therefore the Inquiring Officer is justified in recording a finding of guilt on the basis of the letter dated 18.10.2000.
14. we do not find any merit in the appeal. The appeal is therefore dismissed, but in the circumstances without cost.