Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Suresh Chandra Gupta vs State Bank Of Bikaner & Jaipur & Ors on 26 July, 2016
Author: Sandeep Mehta
Bench: Sandeep Mehta
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1075/2011
Suresh Chandra Gupta. vs. S.B.B.J. & Ors.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR
RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1075/2011
Suresh Chandra Gupta. vs. S.B.B.J. & Ors.
Date of Order : 26.7.2016
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Mehta
Mr.Suresh Chandra Gupta, petitioner present in person.
Mr.Sanjeet Purohit, for the respondents.
<><><>
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner
Suresh Chandra has approached this Court being aggrieved
of the notice dated 13.3.2010 (Annex.19), the order dated
21.5.2010 (Annex.21) passed by the disciplinary authority
whereby, the petitioner was punished for an alleged
misconduct with a penalty of reduction of one stage in
salary and the order dated 30.8.2010 (Annex.23) whereby,
the appeal filed by the petitioner against the said order was
dismissed.
The petitioner present in person urges that the
enquiry officer did not conduct the enquiry in a fair manner.
He was not provided the services of defence nominee. After
issuance of the notice Annex.19, the petitioner submitted a
detailed reply supported by numerous documents but the
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1075/2011
Suresh Chandra Gupta. vs. S.B.B.J. & Ors.
2
disciplinary authority, before passing the order dated
21.5.2010 (Annex.21) imposing penalty upon the petitioner
did not advert to the reply submitted by the petitioner and
without any independent application of mind to the findings
recorded by the enquiry officer, straight off, held him guilty
and imposed the penalty upon him. The appellate authority
too, whilst deciding the appeal did not consider the detailed
grounds of appeal raised by the petitioner in his
memorandum of appeal. He urges that the impugned orders
are totally laconic, unreasoned and non-speaking and thus
deserve to be quashed.
Per contra Mr.Purohit learned counsel for the
respondents, though vehemently opposed the submissions
advanced by the petitioner, but he too is not in a position to
dispute the fact that the disciplinary authority, while
passing the order Annexure-21 did not advert to the written
representation of the petitioner and the documents
submitted by him. Furthermore, the disciplinary authority
did not even advert to the findings recorded to the enquiry
officer and straight off proceeded to concur with the
findings of the enquiry officer. The order passed by the
appellate authority is also cryptic and non-speaking. Thus,
the arguments put forth by the petitioner for assailing the
impugned orders carry force and the impugned orders do
not stand to scrutiny.
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1075/2011
Suresh Chandra Gupta. vs. S.B.B.J. & Ors.
3
Having gone through the notice dated 13.3.2010
(Annex.19) issued to the petitioner to show cause as to why
he should not be punished for the alleged delinquency, it is
evident that even while issuing the notice, the disciplinary
authority in a pre-determined fashion decided the proposed
penalty to be imposed against the petitioner and
communicated the same to him. Thus, evidently, the whole
process of issuing show cause notice to the petitioner was
nothing but a farcical exercise. The disciplinary authority
was bent upon to punish the petitioner and nothing else and
thus, the proceedings undertaken at the end of the
disciplinary authority are evidently arbitrarily and perverse.
Thus, this Court is of the firm opinion that the show cause
notice dated 13.3.2010 Annex.19, the order imposing
penalty dated 21.5.2010 Annex.21 as well as the order
dated 30.8.2010 Annex.23 cannot be sustained as being
laconic, cryptic, non-speaking and suffering from total non-
application of mind as well as perverse.
The disciplinary authority did not even record a finding
that there was any reason to agree with the findings of the
enquiry officer. It straight off proceeded to accept the
conclusions drawn by the enquiry officer in the enquiry
report. The representation submitted by the petitioner in
counter to the notice and the documents filed by him were
not adverted to before passing the impugned order
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1075/2011
Suresh Chandra Gupta. vs. S.B.B.J. & Ors.
4
imposing penalty. The order Annex.23 passed by the
appellate authority also suffers from the same vice of non-
application of mind and being a cryptic non-speaking order
and thus, the same also cannot be sustained.
As a consequence of the above discussion, the instant
writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The
notice Annex.19 dated 13.3.2010, order Annex.21 dated
21.5.2010 and order Annex.23 dated 30.8.2010 are hereby
quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the
disciplinary authority of the petitioner who shall, if so
advised, issue a fresh detailed notice to the petitioner and
thereafter, proceed to provide him an opportunity of
personal hearing on the enquiry report and after
considering the explanation of the petitioner, pass a
reasoned order in the matter as per law. The exercise as
directed above shall be completed within a period of six
months from today.
(SANDEEP MEHTA), J.
/S.Phophaliya/