Chattisgarh High Court
Ram Kumar Patel vs C. G. Gramin Bank And Anr on 11 December, 2023
Author: Rajani Dubey
Bench: Rajani Dubey
1
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Reserved on : 01/09/2023
Order passed on : 11/12/2023
WPS No. 1478 of 2015
Ram Kumar Patel, S/o Shri Basti Ram Patel, 53 years, Officer
Scale I (Terminated), CG Gramin Bank, Basna, Distt.
Mahasamund, R/o Vill. Danganiya, Post-Navagarh, Tah.
Saraipali, Civil & Rev. Distt. Mahasamund (CG)
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. CG Gramin Bank, Through the Chairman Cum Disciplinary
Authority, Mahadev Ghat Road, Sunder Nagar, Raipur (CG)
2. The Board of Director, CG Gramin Bank, Mahadev Ghat Road,
Sunder Nagar, Raipur (CG)
---- Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate.
For Respondents : Mr. Anuroop Panda, Advocate on behalf of Mr. B.D. Guru, Advocate.
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J CAV ORDER This petition has been filed by the petitioner against the orders dated 25.6.2014 and 24.11.2014 whereby services of the petitioner have been terminated from the respondent-Bank and his appeal has also been dismissed.
02. Brief facts of the case, as mentioned in the writ petition, are that the petitioner was working as Officer Grade-I in the respondent Bank. On 13.5.2009 a charge sheet was issued to him by respondent No.1 on various charges such as he did not follow the rules and instructions 2 issued by the Bank, he was found undisciplined and committed forgery with the customers and as such worked against the interest of the Bank vide Annexure P/1. However, no document and list of witnesses was supplied to the petitioner with the charge sheet so issued. The petitioner submitted his reply on 13.8.2009 (Annexure P/2). During the course of enquiry, on 7.8.2012 (Annexure P/3) the petitioner submitted an application and requested for providing him certified copy of certain documents to enable him to defend himself properly. The petitioner was supplied only one document by the Presenting Officer and the remaining documents were denied on the ground that the demand is not specific and those documents are not relevant for adjudication of the departmental enquiry. The Enquiry Officer vide proceedings dated 7.8.2012 (Annexure P/4) refused to direct the Presenting Officer to produce the documents as demanded by the petitioner.
The petitioner challenged the proceedings dated 7.8.2012 by way of writ petition (WPS No.3596/2012) before this Court and vide order dated 30.8.2012 (Annexure P/5) the writ petition was dismissed. The Enquiry Officer proceeded with the enquiry in a most hasty manner without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and in a biased manner concluded the enquiry and submitted the enquiry report wherein the charges leveled against the petitioner were proved vide Annexure P/6.
03. On 10.2.2014 the disciplinary authority issued a show cause notice (Annexure P/7) along with the enquiry report to the petitioner and sought his defence which was duly submitted by the petitioner. 3 However, being dissatisfied with the petitioner's reply, it was decided to impose punishment on him and accordingly, he was issued a notice on 15.4.2014 (Annexure P/8) seeking his explanation.
04. The petitioner submitted his explanation/reply stating therein that the documents which were demanded by him were never supplied to him and the enquiry has been conducted in a hasty and biased manner, therefore, the proceeding of punishment be dropped. However, on 25.6.2014 respondent No.1 passed an order of punishment and terminated the services of the petitioner vide Annexure P/9. The petitioner challenged the said order in appeal before the Board of Directors but the appeal was also dismissed by order dated 24.11.2014 (Annexure P/10) and it was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 10.12.2014. Hence this petition for the following reliefs:
"10.1 To call for the records of the case for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.
10.2 To issue an appropriate writ or order and declare that the order dated 25.06.14 (Annexure P-9) and 24.11.14 (Annexure P-10) are bad in law. 10.3 To issue an appropriate writ or order and quash the order dated 25.06.14 (Annexure P-9) and 24.11.14 (Annexure P-10) are bad in law.
10.4 To issue an appropriate writ or order and direct the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits along with backwages with interest.
10.5 Any other relief deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted." 4
05. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority without appreciating the evidence on record, in a most mechanical manner, passed the impugned orders and therefore, the same being bad in law, illegal and arbitrary are liable to be set aside. No list of witnesses or documents was supplied to the petitioner along with the charge sheet or even thereafter despite the petitioner making request for the same, which resulted in depriving the petitioner of submitting an effective reply. On this ground alone, the entire departmental enquiry proceedings stand vitiated and are liable to be set aside. The petitioner was facing a departmental enquiry on the charges of cheating and forgery with the customers of the bank and those customers as also the inspecting authorities had made complaints. The petitioner demanded those complaints or the complaint register to prove that no such complaint was ever made against him but the same were not supplied to him. The petitioner's request for supplying him the Staff Movement Register or the Inspection Memo to show that none of the authorities made any inspection, was also turned down. Likewise, the petitioners request for supply of audit report and the attendance register was also not acceded to. Denial of all these crucial documents vitiates the whole enquiry and as such, the impugned orders passed in pursuance thereof are liable to be set aside.
No opportunity of hearing was afforded to the petitioner during the departmental enquiry in violation of Rule 39(b) of CG Gramin Bank Officers and Employees Service Regulations, 2010. He submits that as 5 per Rule 41 of the said Regulations, the competent authority by an order delegate the power to make an enquiry on an officer who is in higher scale than the officer against whom the proceeding is instituted. There is violation of Rule 41 of the said Regulations as the Enquiry Officer was an Officer Class-II whereas the Presenting Officer was Officer Class-III. The Enquiry Officer being junior to the Presenting Officer was working under his influence and not applied his mind independently. The entire proceedings have been conducted in utter violation of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and the respondents be directed to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits along with backwages and interest.
Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of UP and others Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha, AIR 2010 SC 3131; order dated 28.3.2011 of this Court in WP No.3790/1998 in the case of Ganesh Ram Chalak Vs. Bilaspur-Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank and judgment dated 17.2.2012 of this Court in WA No.147/2010 in the matter of Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank Vs. Madanlal Tandon.
06. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents strongly opposes the prayer of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner was posted as Officer Class-I in CG Gramin Bank, Basna, Distt. Mahasamund. During departmental enquiry, ample opportunities were given to him. Along with the charge sheet, documents and list of witnesses were duly supplied to him. The respondent authorities had 6 supplied complete information regarding charges along with the charge sheet to the petitioner. He filed an application dated 7.8.2012 which was duly considered by the Enquiry Officer and all the documents which were found to be reasonable for proper adjudication and defence of the petitioner, were supplied to him and the irrelevant documents were denied assigning reasons therefor which is evident from the documents of Annexure P/4. It is quite clear that in the departmental enquiry meeting it was discussed that all the documents available with the bank be supplied to the petitioner and in addition to that, the petitioner was supplied with more than 350 page documents.
It has been further argued that WPS No.3596/2012 filed by the petitioner for supply of copy of certain documents was dismissed considering that no direction can be issued to the respondent authorities as the petitioner is entitled to only those documents based on which the enquiry report is prepared or those documents upon which the Enquiry Officer relies for arriving at the conclusion. The enquiry report (Annexure P/6) was also supplied to the petitioner. Thereafter, on 10.2.2014 the disciplinary authority issued a show cause notice (Annexure P/7) to the petitioner seeking his defence. On 15.4.2014 again a show cause notice (Annexure P/8) was issued to him directing him to submit his explanation as to why he should not be punished. As per Rule 41 of Officers & Employees Service Regulation, 2010 the competent authority may by general or special order in wiring delegate the power of enquiry to an officer who is in higher scale to the officer against whom the proceeding is instituted. There is no provision in the service regulation with regard to presenting officer, therefore, the 7 authority appointed a competent officer only after considering the relevant facts and provisions. However, in place of Enquiry Officer Shri TBS Uday Kumar, one Shri Anup Kumar Tiwari was appointed as Enquiry Officer who was senior to the Presenting Officer. The petitioner was afforded ample opportunities of presenting his case following the principles of natural justice. The whole departmental enquiry proceedings have been conducted in accordance with law and as such, the present petition being without any substance is liable to be dismissed.
Reliance has been placed on the order dated 16.7.2015 of this Court in WP No.2362/2001 in the matter of TRU Nair Vs. State of CG and others.
07. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
08. It is an admitted fact in this case that the petitioner was working in the respondent bank and after departmental enquiry, the disciplinary authority vide order dated 25.6.2014 (Annexure P/9) terminated his services. The appeal preferred against the said order by the petitioner was also dismissed vide order dated 24.11.2014 (Annexure P/10).
09. It is well settled that departmental appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings and the appellate authority is required to go into the factual details and consider all the grounds of appeal before deciding an appeal. Unfortunately, in the present case, the appellate authority dismissed the appeal by passing a non-speaking order which 8 reads as under:
"i= dzekad@lrdZrk@530@2014&15 fnukad % 24-11-2014 Jh vkj- ds- iVsy xzke& Maxfu;ka xksiuh; iks@vk & uokx<+ rglhy & ljk;ikyh ftyk& egkleqUn jk;iqj ¼N-x-½ fiz; egksn;] vkids vihy ds fo:) funs'kd e.My dk fu.kZ; mijksDr fo"k;karxZr vuq'kklfud vf/kdkjh@fu;qfDr izkf/kdkjh }kjk vkids fo:) ikfjr vafre vkns'k fnukad 25-06-2014 ij vkius fnukad 28-07-2014 dks vihy izLrqr fd;kA iwoZorhZ NRrhlx<+ xzkeh.k cSad vf/kdkjh ,oa deZpkjh lsok fofu;e 2010 dh /kkjk 49 ds rgr vkids vihy ij cSad ds funs'kd e.My }kjk fnukad 22-09-2014 ,oa fnukad 11- 11-2014 dks vkgwr cSBd esa fopkj fd;k x;kA vkids vihy ij funs'kd e.My dk fu.kZ; fuEukuqlkj gS%& ^^ funs'kd eaMy }kjk Jh vkj-ds- iVsy ds izdj.k dk foLr`r v/;;u djrs gq, lHkh igyqvksa ij xgu fopkj foe'kZ fd;k x;kA Jh vkj- ds- iVsy ds vihy ij cSad ds funs'kd eaMy dh ;g nwljh cSBd Fkh] ftlesa izdj.k ls lacaf/kr igyqvksa dh foLr`r leh{kk dh xbZ rFkk ;g ik;k x;k fd vihy Lohdkj djus ;ksX; ugha gSA vr% funs'kd eaMy }kjk vihy dks fujLr fd;k x;kA** d`i;k bl i= dh f}rh; izfr ij frfFk;qDr gLrk{kj dj ikorh nsosaA Hkonh;] egkizca/kd ¼iz'kklu½"
No detailed order in writing giving consideration to the grounds raised by the petitioner in his appeal has been filed by the respondent authorities. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Narinder Mohan Arya Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 713, has held that even when an Appellate Authority agrees with the findings of the Disciplinary Authority in a departmental enquiry, it 9 should give reasons so as to enable the Writ Court to ascertain there was an application of the mind as required by the relevant rules. However, in the present case, the order dated 24.11.2014 (Annexure P/10) passed by the appellate authority goes to show that the petitioner's appeal was dismissed without considering the grounds raised by him, in a mechanical manner.
10. Thus, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the settled legal position regarding exercise of appellate jurisdiction and the manner in which the impugned order dated 24.11.2014 (Annexure P/10) has been passed, the same being not in accordance with law is hereby set aside. However, the appellate authority is directed to pass a speaking and reasoned order taking into account all the grounds raised by the petitioner in his appeal, strictly in accordance with law, within an outer limit of six months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The petitioner is also at liberty to amend the appeal by raising additional ground(s), if so desires, which shall be considered and decided by the appellate authority.
It is made clear that nothing in this order shall be construed as an expression of opinion on merits of the case and the appellate authority to decide the appeal on its own merits in accordance with law.
Sd/ (Rajani Dubey) Judge Khan