Back
2015 Supreme(Pat) 1449
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, J.
Shashi Bhushan Yadav – Petitioner
Versus
Bihar State Financial Corporation through its Managing Director – Respondent
CWJC No. 11510 of 2000
Decided On : 17-07-2015
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Manik Vedsen, Mr. Subhash Chandra Bose.
For the Respondents: Mr. Y.V. Giri, Mr. Nikhil Kumar Agrawal.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for fair disciplinary proceedings, including the examination of crucial witnesses and the need for cogent evidence to establish misconduct, in accordance with the principles of natural justice.
Headnote:
Compulsory Retirement - Employment Dispute - [Bihar State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 - Section 19(1)(a), Section 19(1)(b), Section 19(2)(a)] - The court discussed the provisions of the Bihar State Financial Corporation Act, 1951, particularly Section 19(1)(a), Section 19(1)(b), and Section 19(2)(a), which govern the disciplinary proceedings and punishment of employees. The court emphasized the importance of examining crucial witnesses and the need for cogent evidence to establish misconduct, highlighting the principles of natural justice and fair disciplinary proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an employee of Bihar State Financial Corporation, was charged with witnessing an agreement signed by a deceased person, leading to a departmental proceeding and compulsory retirement. The petitioner challenged the decision through a writ application.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the disciplinary proceedings were flawed as crucial witnesses were not examined, and there was a lack of cogent evidence to establish the alleged misconduct. The court quashed the order of compulsory retirement and directed the Corporation to provide consequential benefits to the petitioner.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the disciplinary proceedings, sufficiency of evidence, and adherence to principles of natural justice in imposing compulsory retirement.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that non-examination of crucial witnesses and lack of cogent evidence vitiated the disciplinary proceedings, emphasizing the importance of fair and just disciplinary actions in accordance with the principles of natural justice.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ application, quashed the order of compulsory retirement, and directed the Corporation to provide consequential benefits to the petitioner.
JUDGMENT :
CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, J.
1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties.
2. This is an application seeking quashing of an order dated 14.04.1998, passed by the Managing Director, Bihar State Financial Corporation, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the “Corporation”) whereby, punishment of compulsory retirement from service of the Corporation has been imposed upon the petitioner. The said order dated 14.04.1998, was communicated to the petitioner through Memo No. 119 dated 21.04.1998 (Annexure-13 to the writ application). Against the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner had preferred an appeal before the Corporation. The petitioner’s appeal came to be rejected during the pendency of the present writ application, as communicated to him through letter dated 22.07.2002. By way of amendment through I.A. No. 3512 of 2002, the petitioner has sought for quashing of the decision of the Appellate Authority, rejecting the petitioner’s appeal as well as the said communication dated 22.07.2002 (Annexure-17 to the I.A. No. 3512 of 2002).
3. I.A. No. 3512 of 2002 stands allowed. The relief sought for in the aforesaid interlocutory application, seeking quashing of the said appellate decision and the said communication dated 22.07.2002, shall be treated to be relief sought for in the present writ application.
4. The petitioner, at the relevant point of time, was posted as Senior Assistant in Ranchi branch of the Corporation in the year 1986. On the charge that while sanctioning additional loan by the Corporation to M/s Hotel Neelkanth, Ranchi on 05.08.1986, he became a witness to the loan agreement executed by the partners of said M/S Hotel Neelkanth, including one Raj Kumari Sharma, on 21.08.1986. Allegedly, the son of said Raj Kumari Sharma, namely, Hemant Kumar Sharma, through his letter dated 05.01.1996, informed the Corporation that his mother had died of Cancer on 20.07.1985 in Tata Hospital, Bombay. The said intimation by said Hemant Kumar Sharma accompanied a death certificate in support of the fact that Raj Kumari Sharma had died on 20.07.1985 itself, which indicated that the petitioner wrongly became witness to so-called agreement between the partners of said M/s Hotel Neelkanth on 21.08.1986, shown to have been signed by a person, who was already dead.
5. It was, accordingly, alleged against the petitioner that he entered into a criminal conspiracy with another partner of the firm, namely, Rajendra Kumar Sharma, and falsely witnessed the execution of registration of the said agreement on 21.08.1986. The chargesheet to this effect was issued vide Memo No. 40 dated 07.04.1997 (Annexure-1 to the writ application). The petitioner filed his written statement of defence and denied the charge levelled against him.
6. An Enquiry Officer was appointed for conducting the departmental proceeding. The petitioner had participated in the departmental enquiry. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry on 07.01.1998 and held the charge levelled against the petitioner to have been proved.
7. The Disciplinary Authority agreeing with the report of the Enquiry Officer, imposed upon the petitioner the punishment of compulsory retirement from the service of the Corporation vide order dated 14.04.1998, as noted above. The petitioner’s appeal came to be rejected by an order dated 22.07.2002. The aforesaid two orders are under challenge in the present writ application.
8. Mr. Manik Vedsen, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has contended that the Corporation proceeded on the letter written by said Hemant Kumar Sharma to the effect that her mother died of Cancer on 20.07.1985, i.e. prior to the date when the said agreement was said to have been executed on 21.08.1986 by her, which was witnessed by the petitioner. He submits that said Hemant Kumar Sharma was not brought as witness by the Corporation to prove the fact that said Raj Kumari Sharma had died on 20.07.1985. He has submitted that, as a mat
