Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
RAJANI DUBEY, J.
Ram Kumar Patel, S/o. Shri Basti Ram Patel - Petitioner
Versus
CG Gramin Bank, Through the Chairman Cum Disciplinary Authority, Raipur (CG) & Ors. - Respondents
WPS No. 1478 of 2015
Decided On : 11-12-2023
Termination - Departmental Enquiry - CG Gramin Bank Officers and Employees Service Regulations, 2010 - Rule 39(b), Rule 41 - State of U.P. and others Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha, AIR 2010 SC 3131; Ganesh Ram Chalak Vs. Bilaspur-Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank; Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank Vs. Madanlal Tandon; TRU Nair Vs. State of CG and others
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an Officer Grade-I in the respondent Bank, was terminated from service after a departmental enquiry. The petitioner alleged lack of opportunity to defend, denial of crucial documents, and violation of principles of natural justice.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellate authority dismissed the appeal without considering the grounds raised by the petitioner in a mechanical manner, contrary to the settled legal position regarding exercise of appellate jurisdiction.
Issues: Violation of principles of natural justice, lack of opportunity to defend, denial of crucial documents, non-speaking order by appellate authority.
Ratio Decidendi: The appellate authority must pass a speaking and reasoned order, taking into account all grounds raised by the petitioner in the appeal, strictly in accordance with law. The departmental appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings, and the appellate authority is required to consider all grounds of appeal before deciding.
Final Decision: The impugned order of the appellate authority was set aside, and the appellate authority was directed to pass a speaking and reasoned order within six months, taking into account all grounds raised by the petitioner in the appeal.
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.
2. 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 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.
3. 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. 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.
4. 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 :
10.2 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.”
5. 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
The appellate authority must provide a reasoned order, considering all grounds raised in the appeal, and adhere to the principles of natural justice.
Departmental inquiries must be conducted with due adherence to principles of natural justice, requiring actual proof of allegations presented.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the recovery of dues from a retired employee and the continuation of a departmental enquiry after retirement must be in accordance with the ap....
The court established that in disciplinary proceedings, the principles of natural justice must be followed, but the court's role is limited to ensuring procedural fairness rather than re-evaluating t....
The failure to provide crucial documents and examine key witnesses in a departmental inquiry violates natural justice and Article 311(2) of the Constitution, warranting annulment of the imposed penal....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
