Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2011 Supreme(Pat) 2018

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Kishore K. Mandal, J.
Virendra Prasad Singh ‘Gautam’ S/o Late Shyam Bihari Singh R/o Vill. And P.O.- Hardiya, P.S.- Jagdishpur, Distt.- Bhojpur, At Ara, Presently Residing At Road No. 7A/11, Indrapuri, P.O.- Shastri Nagar, P.S.- Patliputra, Distt.- Patna – Petitioner
Versus
The Bihar Rajya Sahkari Bhumi Vikas Bank Simit Budh Marg, Patna through The Chairman & Ors. – Respondent
CWJC No.17861 of 2010
Decided On : 23.9.2011.

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the petitioner: Mr. S.B.K. Mangalam
For the Respondent: Mr. Y.V. Giri, Rajesh Pd. Choudhary.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a fair and unbiased departmental proceeding, adherence to the rules of natural justice, and the gravity of dismissal as a punishment, influencing the court's decision to quash the dismissal order and direct a fresh departmental enquiry.

Headnote:
Dismissal - Departmental Proceeding - Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002 - Section 49 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the provisions of the Multi State Co-operative Societies Act, 2002, particularly Section 49, and emphasized the requirement for a fair and unbiased departmental proceeding. The court highlighted the quasi-judicial duty of the Enquiry Officer and the need for adherence to the rules of natural justice. The judgment also emphasized the gravity of dismissal as a punishment and the necessity for a just decision-making process.
Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, an employee of the Bihar Rajya Sahkari Bhumi Vikas Bank, was transferred to a different branch but did not comply with the transfer order. Subsequently, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner, leading to his dismissal from service. The petitioner challenged the dismissal through a writ petition.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the Enquiry Officer did not fulfill the quasi-judicial duty in conducting the departmental proceeding, and the decision-making process was flawed. The court emphasized the importance of a fair and unbiased proceeding, especially considering the gravity of dismissal as a punishment.
Issues: The issues revolved around the fairness of the departmental proceeding, the conduct of the Enquiry Officer, and the legality of the dismissal based on the flawed decision-making process.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Enquiry Officer's failure to conduct a fair and unbiased proceeding, as well as the flawed decision-making process, warranted the court's intervention. The judgment emphasized the need for adherence to the rules of natural justice and the gravity of dismissal as a punishment.
Final Decision: The court quashed the report of the Enquiry Officer, the dismissal order, and directed the petitioner to file a response to the charges for a fresh departmental enquiry. The court emphasized the need for an expeditious and fair proceeding, with the possibility of proceeding ex parte if the petitioner delays the process.

ORDER :

Sustainability of the ORDER :dated 19.11.2009 (Annexure-13) passed by the Authority of the Respondent-Bihar Rajya Sahkari Bhumi Vikas Bank Simit (for short ‘the Bank’) is under challenge by which it has been communicated that the petitioner was found truant/guilty in a departmental proceeding and has been dismissed from service.

2. Background facts giving rise to the present writ petition, in short, are as follows : –

3. Petitioner while working as the Director, Personnel of the Bank by ORDER :dated 12.9.2007 as contained in Annexure-1 was transferred from the headquarters at Patna to the Regional Branch of the Bank at Saharsa as Senior Area Manager. Petitioner did not join the post in obedience to the said ORDER :. For this act of omission and commission, the Respondent-Bank by a resolution dated 18.01.2008 (Annexure-2) initiated a departmental proceeding against the petitioner in which an Enquiry Officer was appointed and articles of charge (Annexure-2/1) was framed and served on him. By ORDER :dated 28.01.2008 as contained in Annexure-3, supplementary charges were framed and served on him. Aggrieved by the initiation of departmental proceeding and appointment of Enquiry Officer, the petitioner raised a dispute before the Respondent-Registrar Co-operative Societies giving rise to Service Appeal No.18 of 2008. By a proceeding dated 06.05.2008 (Annexure-4), the Respondent-Registrar stayed the ORDER :by which a retired officer of the Government was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. It is the case of the petitioner that the Respondent-Managing Director by ORDER :dated 24.3.2009 (Annexure-5) revoked the ORDER :by which the petitioner was placed under suspension and payment of salary for the period he was kept under suspension was made subject to the result of the appeal (Service Appeal No.18/08). By ORDER :dated 01.06.2009 (Annexure-6) passed under ORDER :of the Respondent-Chairman of the Bank, the petitioner was posted at Saharsa as Senior Recovery Officer of the Bank. The Respondent-Managing Director by an ORDER :dated 9.6.2009 (Annexure-7) cancelled the aforesaid ORDER :(Annexure-6). The Managing Director by another ORDER :contained in memo no.1868 dated 23.06.2009 (Annexure-8) assigned the petitioner certain additional duties at the headquarters treating him as the Director, Personnel after revocation of his suspension. The Board of Directors of the Respondent-Bank resolved to set at naught all the ORDER :s passed by the In-charge Managing Director and the same was communicated to all concerned under the signature of the chairman of the Bank (Annexure-9). It is the case of the petitioner that he was not made available the ORDER :by which the Board of Directors rescinded all the ORDER :s passed by the In-charge Managing Director including the ORDER :dated 9.6.2009 (Annexure-7), the office ORDER :contained in memo no. 1868 dated 23.06.2009 (Annexure-8) and the ORDER :by which the petitioner was relieved from the post of Director Personnel on which post he was treated/posted by the Respondent-Managing Director by his ORDER :dated 23.6.2009 (Annexure-8). He, therefore, made application under the provisions contained in Right to Information Act (RTI) whereafter by a communication dated 12.04.2010 (Annexure-12) he was made available the copy of the ORDER :dated 02.07.2009 (Annexure-10) whereby he was relieved to join his post at Saharsa (Annexure-10) as also the ORDER :dated 19.11.2009 (Annexure-13) wherefrom it appeared that for disobedience of the ORDER :s of the authority a proceeding was initiated against him and on conclusion thereof, he was dismissed from service. The petitioner thus filed the present writ petition.

4. A counter affidavit was filed by the Respondent-Bank which was found unsatisfactory and thus withdrawn with the permission of the Court. Thereafter two sets of counter affidavit(s) have been filed on behalf of the Respondent-Bank. Petitioner has filed rejoinder to one of the counter affidavits.

5. Learn

Click Here to Read the rest of this document