Back
2004 Supreme(Guj) 268
Gujarat High Court
Judgename :Bhawani Singh, H.K.RATHOD
JAGDISHCHANDRA MAGANLAL TRIVEDI - Appellant
Versus
STATE BANK OF INDIA - Respondent
L.P.A.1323 of 1997
Decided On : 04/15/2004
Headnote:
Constitution of India - Articles 226, 142, 323-A, 14 - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 11-A, 72 - Learned advocate for the respondent - Letters Patent Appeal appellant has challenged the oral judgment dated delivered by the learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application - Brief facts are as under Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment initially - Respondent bank called explanation from the appellant by letter dated in respect of the alleged incident - Appellant had received charge sheet dated when he was working as Branch Manager in State Bank of India Branch - Alleged incident is dated In charge sheet following charges were level against the appellant - Shortage of cash amounting to in the currency chest balance at the branch and its replenishment brought to your notice on the were not reported by you to your controlling authority till - You also failed to record these shortages and their subsequent recovery in any of the banks books - Though you were aware of certain acts - Committed with mala fide intention you failed to report the incidents to your controlling authority - Held, Appellant retired in after reaching the age of superannuation - From the date of incident almost years have passed - Appellant is getting the result in when he is aged more than years suffering from the last stage of cancer - Single Judge - Whole approach of the learned Single Judge is technical ignoring the substance of the matter. Learned Single Judge ought to have examined the matter in light of the proportionality whether it has been pressed into service or not by the parties - Court is not precluded from considering the matter with full application of mind and should not be confined only to the submissions made by the parties - Court feels that further merits are required to be examined for doing complete justice then the court should not stop and examine further merits of the matter for doing complete justice between the parties so that the dispute may reach the finality in all respects. Therefore according to our opinion - Learned Single Judge has committed gross error in not considering the petition in proper perspective and impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge is required to be quashed and the said petition allowed - Appellate authority Local Board in its order dated we are of the opinion that the misconduct is not proved against the appellant and, therefore - Punishment imposed by the appellate authority Local Board is not sustainable and that part of the order dated imposing punishment of reversion against the appellant is required to be quashed - Order passed by the appellate authority of the respondent bank relating to imposing punishment of reversion are hereby quashed and set aside - Judgment and order of the learned Single Judge rendered in Special Civil Application dated is hereby quashed. Special Civil Application is allowed - Appeal is allowed.
( 1 ) HEARD learned Sr. Counsel Mr. Yatin Oza with Mr. Sunil K. Shah for the appellant and Mr. Pranav G. Desai, learned advocate for the respondent. In this Letters Patent Appeal, the appellant has challenged the oral judgment dated July 8, 1997 delivered by the learned Single Judge (Coram : S. K. Keshote,j.) in Special Civil Application NO. 4121 of 1984. Brief facts are as under: Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? initially, the respondent bank called explanation from the appellant by letter dated November 24, 1978 in respect of the alleged incident. The appellant JAGDISHCHANDRA MAGANLAL TRIVEDI had received charge sheet dated January 24, 1981 when he was working as Branch Manager in State Bank of India, Borsad Branch. Alleged incident is dated October 7, 1978. In charge sheet, following charges were levelled against the appellant :" (A) A shortage of cash amounting to Rs. 55,000. 00 in the currency chest balance at the branch and its replenishment brought to your notice on the 7th October, 1978 were not reported by you to your controlling authority till 8. 11. 1978. You also failed to record these shortages and their subsequent recovery in any of the banks books. (b) Though you were aware of certain acts of Shri R. U. Patel, cashier, committed with mala fide intention, you failed to report the incidents to your controlling authority ? (c) Knowing fully well that Shri R. U. Patel had committed serious irregularities in the cash department, you failed to proceed against him. "
( 2 ) IN charge sheet, details of the charges were also given by the competent authority. The Chief General Manager was competent authority or disciplinary authority who had issued the charge sheet. Reply was submitted by the appellant on April 10, 1981. The appellant was placed under suspension with effect from April 21, 1979. Subsequent to the suspension of the appellant, CBI Investigation was carried out. According to the appellant, in report of the CBI, no prima facie case was found against the appellant, therefore, suspension order was revoked and the appellant was reinstated in service by order dated March 13, 1981. Copy of the report of the CBI was demanded by the appellant but the same was not supplied. Departmental inquiry was initiated against the appellant and the inquiry officer was appointed on April 30, 1981. The inquiry officer submitted his report on May 13, 1982. The inquiry officer come to the conclusion that the second and third charges are established to his satisfaction and the first charge had been partly proved.
( 3 ) THE competent authority after receiving report from the inquiry officer, was in agreement with the findings of the enquiry officer. The competent authority also gave reasons for his agreement. The competent authority imposed punishment of compulsory retirement against the appellant with immediate effect by order dated August 2, 1982. Alongwith the order of punishment, copy of the findings of the enquiry officer was enclosed. Then, the appellant preferred departmental appeal on August 30, 1982 before the Local Board. The appellate authority Local Board decided the appeal by order dated May 7, 1983. The appellate authority modified the order of punishment from compulsory retirement to reversion to the lower cadre JMC Scale-I. Then, the appellant was reinstated in service. Having reached the age of superannuation, the appellant retired in December, 1992. Affidavit in reply was filed by the respondent bank through its Chief General Manager Shri Laxman G. Kulkarni. Thereafter, further affidavit was filed by the respondent bank through its General Manager Shri V. Christian and certain documents relating to subsequent misconduct and order of punishment were produced on record. Said affidavit of the bank was replied by the appellant on April 17, 1997.
( 4 ) MR. Oza, learned Sr. Counsel for the appellant submits that looking to the charge sheet itself, misconduct is not prove
