Patna High Court - Orders
Jeevan Kumar Jha vs The State Bank Of India & Ors on 10 September, 2014
Author: Samarendra Pratap Singh
Bench: Samarendra Pratap Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5400 of 2006
======================================================
JEEVAN KUMAR JHA, SON OF SRI CHANDRA MOHAN JHA,
RESIDENT OF MUHALLA BALBHADRAPUR POLICE STATION
LAHERIASARAI, DISTRICT DARBHANGA .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. THE STATE BANK OF INDIA THROUGH ITS MANAGING
DIRECTOR, SBI, CENTRAL OFFICE, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI
2. THE DEPTY GENERAL MANAGER, SBI, ZONALOFFICE,
MUZAFFARPUR
3. ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER, REGION IV, SBI, ZONAL
OFFICE, MUZAFFARPUR
4. REGIONAL MANAGER, REGION IV, ZONAL OFFICE,
MUZAFFARPUR
5. BRANCH MANAGER, SBI, AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT
BRANCH, BENIPUR, DARBHANGA .... .... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr.Ajay Kr.Thakur, Advocate
For the Bank : Mr. Kaushlendra Kr.Sinha, Advocate &
Mr. Anjani Kr.Mishra, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH
ORAL ORDER
11 10-09-2014The petitioner was an erstwhile employee of the State Bank of India (herein after referred to as 'the Bank') and was working as Assistant in Agriculture Development Branch, Benipur in the district of Darbhanga, at the time of his removal from service by order dated 16.03.2000 passed by respondent no.3. The petitioner was subjected to departmental proceeding on three charges.
On conclusion of the enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted his enquiry report on 19.05.1997 (Annexure-11) to the disciplinary authority. The enquiry officer did not find Charge no.1 & 2 substantially proved. The disciplinary Patna High Court CWJC No.5400 of 2006 (11) dt.10-09-2014 2/5 authority vide order dated 16.12.1999 disagreed with the findings of the enquiry officer and while issuing 2nd show-cause notice was of the view that charges stood proved. The petitioner filed reply to the show-cause on 07.02.2000 (Annexure-13). Not being satisfied with the show-cause of the petitioner, the disciplinary authority inflicted punishment of removal from service. The petitioner preferred appeal before respondent no.2, which too failed.
The enquiry report, order of the disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority are in challenge in this writ application on amongst the following grounds. The petitioner has raised two grounds. The enquiry officer recorded his finding of guilt on the basis of documents, which were not supplied to him, which is not permissible in law. In support of his submissions, the petitioner has relied upon a decision in case of Govt. of A. P. & others Vs. A.Venkata. Raidu, reported in (2007) 1 SCC 338 paragraph 8. He next submits that the disciplinary authority at the stage of issuance of second show- cause notice while disagreeing with the report of the enquiry officer, came to a conclusive finding of guilt, which is also not permissible in law. In support of his submission, he has relied upon the judgment reported in 2002(1) PLJR 741 and 2004(4) Patna High Court CWJC No.5400 of 2006 (11) dt.10-09-2014 3/5 PLJR 218.
Learned counsel for the bank submits that the petitioner never raised any objection with respect to non-supply of documents either before the disciplinary officer or before the appellate authority. He submits that in any view of the matter the petitioner has to show as to how was he prejudiced by the non-supply of documents by the enquiry officer. In support of his submission, learned counsel has relied upon a decision rendered in case of State of Punjab and another Vs. Hari Singh, 2008(2) Supreme 498, particularly paragraph 9. In the aforesaid case, the delinquent took the plea that the departmental proceeding stood vitiated as the respondents did not supply the documents on basis of which findings were recorded both by the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority. Negating the submission, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that respondent, Hari Singh has not been able to establish as to how he was prejudiced by non-supply of the documents. He next submits that though the disciplinary authority observed that the charges are proved, however, in concluding portion, he stated that the final decision would be take on the receipt of the show cause.
The case can be disposed of on one of the two issues raised by the petitioner, that the disciplinary authority ought not Patna High Court CWJC No.5400 of 2006 (11) dt.10-09-2014 4/5 to have come to a final conclusion while issuing the 2nd show cause notice. The issue, in question, is no more res-integra as the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Punjab National Bank and others Vs. Kunj Bihari Misra, (1998) 7 SCC 84 observed that at the stage of issuing 2nd show cause, the disciplinary authority should only record its tentative reason and not its final conclusion that the charges are proved. The relevant extract of paragraph 19 of the judgment is quoted herein below-
"19. The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7 (2). As a result thereof whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the inquiry authority on any article of charge then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the inquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the inquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority, which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer."
(underlining is of mine) In the backdrop of the discussions made in the foregoing paragraphs, I hold that the disciplinary authority erred in recording the findings of guilt at the stage of issuance of show- Patna High Court CWJC No.5400 of 2006 (11) dt.10-09-2014 5/5
cause, which virtually left nothing for being decided, upon receipt of show-cause reply. The act of the Disciplinary authority amounts to prejudging the issue, which is not permissible in law.
In the result, the 2nd show cause notice dated 16.12.1999 (Annexure 12) and the consequential order of punishment dated are set aside with liberty to the respondents to proceed from the stage of issuance of fresh show cause notice indicating its tentative disagreement with the findings of the enquiry report.
The petitioner would duly co-operate in the proceedings. The writ petition is thus allowed to the extent mentioned in the order.
(Samarendra Pratap Singh, J) Shashi.
U