Back
2016 Supreme(Del) 372
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, DEEPA SHARMA, JJ.
S. P. SHARMA – APPELLANT
Versus
STATE BANK OF BIKANER AND JAIPUR & ORS. - RESPONDENTS
LPA 51/2016
Decided On : 25.01.2016
Mr.Barun Kumar Sinha and Ms.Pratibha Sinha, Advocates
Ms.Kittu Bajaj, Advocate
The issuance and service of a charge sheet signify the commencement of the departmental proceeding, and a separate order by the Managing Director to continue with the enquiry is not necessary.
Headnote:
Regulation 19 (2) - Employment Dispute - Regulation 19(2) of the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979 - The court discussed the interpretation of Regulation 19(2) and concluded that the issuance and service of a charge sheet itself signifies the commencement of the departmental proceeding, and the Managing Director's separate order to continue with the enquiry was not necessary.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a bank employee, was served with a charge sheet on the day of his superannuation, leading to his dismissal. The appellant filed a writ petition, which was allowed by the Single Judge but overturned by the Division Bench. The appellant appealed, arguing the interpretation of Regulation 19(2) and the merits of the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the charge sheet's issuance and service triggered the departmental proceeding, and the Managing Director's separate order to continue with the enquiry was not necessary. The court directed the Single Judge to consider and decide the matter on the merits within six months.
Issues: The issues involved the interpretation of Regulation 19(2) and the consideration of the merits of the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the charge sheet's issuance and service itself signified the commencement of the departmental proceeding, and the separate order by the Managing Director to continue with the enquiry was not required.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the Single Judge was directed to consider and decide the matter on the merits within six months.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT)
C.M.No.2634/2015 (for exemption)
Exemption is allowed subject to just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
C.M.Nos.2635/2016 (for delay)
For the reasons mentioned the application, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed of.
LPA 51/2016
1. Issue notice. Ms. Kittu Bajaj, advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.
2. With the consent of the parties the matter has been heard.
3. The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 26.11.2015 wherein his contention with respect to the continuation of the enquiry proceedings after superannuation was rejected. The brief facts are that the appellant was initially appointed by the respondent bank in 1969 as a clerk. After a series of promotions, he ultimately became chief manager. During his enquiry he was transferred to the branch of Belanganj, Agra and subsequently to Chandani Chowk. He was served with charge sheet dated 29.01.2007 on 31.01.2007, with adverse acts of misconduct in relation to the conduct of sanctioning and disbursement of housing loans to various account holders and borrowers whilst he was incharge of the Belanganj Branch at Agra. On the day the chargesheet was served, the petitioner was also to superannuate. After granting opportunity to the appellant to answer the adverse findings, the disciplinary authority in a reasoned order accepted the report and rejected his grievance; consequently the penalty of dismissal was imposed on him. The appellant’s further plea is that his appeal before the higher authority was rejected. He therefore approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.13764/2009. On 14.05.2012 the learned Single Judge of this court allowed the said writ petition and set aside the orders dated 06.08.2008 of the penalty imposed upon the appellant and also set aside the order of the appellate authority. The narrow ground on which the learned Single Judge premised his judgment was that the appellant was not served with the complete charge sheet and related documents. The bank appealed this judgment – preferring LPA No.736/2012. On 01.02.2013, the Division Bench by its judgment and order upset the findings of the learned Single Judge as to the denial of material documents at the stage of service of chargesheet. The case was consequently remanded to the Single Judge. On 01.02.2013, the Division Bench recorded as follows:
“6. In view of the above, we are satisfied that there is no merit in the contention of the respondent that Annexure-I and Annexure-II to the Memo dated 29.1.2007, were not received by him on 31.1.2007 and such a plea taken by him is only an afterthought. Since the order allowing the writ petition is based solely on the ground that the aforesaid annexures had not been received by the respondent on 31.1.2007, it is liable to be set aside.
7. The learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that one of his contentions before the learned Single Judge, as noted in the order dated 25.4.2012, which has been reproduced in the impugned order dated 14.5.2012 was with respect to the protection afforded to the respondent under Rule 19(2) of the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979. Since the learned Single Judge did not advert to this plea taken by the respondent, we are of the view that the matter needs to be remitted back to the learned Single Judge for adjudication on the aforesaid plea taken by the respondent.
8. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the appeal is allowed, the order dated 14.5.2012 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned Single Judge for adjudicating upon the plea of the respondent based upon non-compliance of Rule 19(2) of the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979.”
4. The appellant’s argument before the learned Single Judge as to the applicability of Regulation 19 (2) did not find favour and held inter alia that since the question w
