Back
2013 Supreme(Pat) 20
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA, J.
Rana Pratap Singh S/o late Guru Dayal Singh R/o Uttar Badi Tola, Village & P.O. & P.S. Sursand, District- Sitamarhi - Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank through its General Manager Head Office Kalambagh Chowk, Muzaffarpur
2. The General Manager, Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank, Head Office Kalambagh Chowk, Muzaffarpur
3. The Chairman-Cum-Disciplinary Authority, Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank Head Office, Kalambagh Chowk, Muzaffarpur
4. The Branch Manager, Yadopatti Branch, Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank, Sitamarhi - Respondent/s
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.23383 of 2012
Decided on: 08-01-2013
For the Petitioner/s:Mr. Mukundjee, Advocate.
For the Respondent/s:Mr. Prabhakar Jha, Advocate.
The court's review under Article 226 focuses on the decision-making process, not the decision itself, and the punishment must be proportionate to the gravity of the charges proved.
Headnote:
Dismissal - Departmental Enquiry - Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010 - Regulation Nos. 18 and 20
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the order of dismissal from service by the disciplinary authority of the respondent-Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank, based on findings from a departmental proceeding. The charges included disbursing loans while on medical leave, depositing a large amount in a personal account, and unauthorized receipt of insurance claim.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the departmental enquiry was conducted properly, the charges against the petitioner were proved, and the punishment of dismissal from service was warranted based on the gravity of the charges and the misconduct proved.
Issues: Validity of departmental enquiry process, availability of audit report, and proportionality of the punishment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that it only examines the decision-making process, not the decision itself, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It found no procedural irregularity in the enquiry or in awarding the dismissal from service. The punishment was deemed proportionate to the gravity of the charges.
Final Decision: The application was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the legality and correctness of the order dated 4.1.2012 (Annexure-7) passed by the disciplinary authority of the respondent-Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank inflicting upon him the punishment of dismissal from service of the respondent-Bank on the basis of the findings recorded in the departmental proceeding. He has also assailed the validity and correctness of the appellate order dated 26.7.2012 (Annexure-10), whereby the appeal filed on behalf of the petitioner has been rejected and the punishment of dismissal from service has been affirmed.
2. It is the common case of the parties that while the petitioner was posted as Officer Scale-1 of Regional Office, Jhanjharpur in the district of Madhubani, he was subjected to departmental proceeding for several charges with respect to discharge of his duties as Branch Manager of Yadopatti Branch of Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank. The memorandum dated 1.6.2011 (Annexure-1) was issued to the petitioner informing him that a departmental enquiry is proposed to be held against him with respect to various charges as detailed in articles of charges. The petitioner was called upon to submit his statement of defence within a period of seven days. One Sri. S.S. Singh, Branch Manager, Katihar Branch under Regional Office, Purnea of the respondent-Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank was appointed as Enquiry Officer and Sri. B.C. Mishra, Officer Scale-1, was appointed as a Presenting Officer. In the articles of charges altogether 10 charges were framed against the petitioner, which according to the respondent-Bank would constitute misconduct within the meaning of Regulation Nos. 18 and 20 of Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as Regulations, 2010).
3. In response to the aforesaid memorandum dated 1.6.2011, the petitioner filed his written statement of defence on 24.6.2011 (Annexure-2), which was found not satisfactory as a result thereof regular departmental enquiry was held. On conclusion of the departmental enquiry, the enquiry report dated 27.10.2011 was submitted and a copy of the aforesaid enquiry report was forwarded to the petitioner by the disciplinary authority by letter dated 5.11.2011 (Annexure-5).
4. As per the findings of the enquiry officer all the ten charges against the petitioner were found to have been proved. Though articles of charges have been fully detailed in Annexure-1 of the memorandum dated 1.6.2011, but it would be suffice to notice only few charges for showing the gravity of charges. Charge no. 1 against the petitioner was that while he was on medical leave on 28.4.2009, 11.6.2009, 12.6.2009 and 13.6.2009, he disbursed huge amount of loan to the different persons. He adjusted old NPA loans from the amount disbursed causing financial loss to the Bank. Charge no. 3 against the petitioner was that he deposited abnormally huge amount of more than Rs. 25 lakhs in his personal O/D. account during the period from 29.1.2007 to 13.6.2009 i.e. about 28 months and this amount was in addition to be the amount, which was otherwise payable to the petitioner. Charge no. 5 was that petitioner unauthorisedly sanctioned crops insurance claim of Rs, 25,990/- in his own name.
5. During the course of departmental enquiry nine management exhibits and two management witnesses were produced by the presenting officer to prove the charges against the petitioner. Though, the petitioner participated in the enquiry and was given full opportunity, yet he did not produce even a single witness in support of his version and for disproving the charges against him. However, he produced only one defence exhibit. After conclusion of the departmental enquiry, as stated above, the enquiry report was submitted on 27.10.2011 holding the petitioner guilty for all the charges and a copy of the enquiry report was forwarded to the petitioner on 5.11.2011. Learned counsel appea
