Back
2012 (2) GCD 1222 (Guj)
Hon’ble Mr. Justice C.L. Soni
Rajeevkumar
Versus
State Bank of Patiala
Special Civil Application No. 5414 of 1991—Decided on 10/02/2012
[Indian] Penal Code, 1860 (Central Act 45 of 1860) — Section 161 — Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 — Sections 5(2) and 5(1)(d) — State Bank of Patiala (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979 — Regulations 68(iii), 68(3)(iii), 69(1)(a), 69(1)(b) and 69(5) — Criminal proceeding dropped and on bases of Dept. enquiry order of dismissal — Claim for reinstatement and award of salary allowances and all other benefits admissible — Scope of — Finding as to — The petitioner in departmental enquiry against him was charged to have received Rs. 5,000/- as bribe from complaint and was caught by Anti. Corruption Bureau — He thus exhibited lack of integrity and acted in a manner unbecoming of Bank official — It may be noted at the very out set that criminal proceedings were indicated against petitioner but respondent Bank held departmental enquiry for the said charges and on completion of enquiry and alleged prove of charges ordered dismissal of petitioner — Court considered the record and heard the parties and found no legal evidence adduced in the enquiry to prove charges against petitioner — Court opined that it is a case of no evidence against petitioner — The order of penalty of dismissal can not also stand scrutiny of Law against petitioner because before passing the order of penalty of dismissal against petitioner the appointing authority which is higher in rank that the disciplinary authority did not give opportunity of hearing to petitioner which was required under the Law — Consequently Court allowed the petitioner and set aside and quashed the order of dismissal — The petitioner was beside allowed all the consequential benefits with 50% back wages for the period from the date of order of dismissal till the date of his superannuation
Held :
It is pertinent to note here on the basis of complaint before the Anti Corruption Bureau, trap was laid. However, no criminal proceedings were initiated against the petitioner but the respondent bank decided to hold departmental inquiry against the petitioner for above mentioned charges. Though Court find that the petitioner was given ample opportunity in the inquiry proceedings, there was no legal evidence adduced in the inquiry to prove the charge against the petitioner. Court find that it is a case of no evidence against the petitioner. Court also find that the order of penalty of dismissal against the petitioner cannot stand scrutiny of law because before passing the order of penalty of dismissal against the petitioner, the appointing authority which was higher in rank than the disciplinary authority did not give opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. [Para 11]
Law Laid Down :
There is a limited scope of Judicial review in respect of departmental enquiry proceedings and it is not open for the Court to reappreciate the evidence recorded in enquiry proceedings and to substitute the view taken by enquiry officer.
C.L. Soni, J.—By way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for quashing and setting aside the entire inquiry proceedings as being violative of the principles of natural justice, an order of dismissal dated 6th August, 1987 passed by the Managing Director and the order of the Executive Committee, appellate authority dismissing the appeal and confirming the said order of dismissal on 10th August, 1988 and the order passed by the Board of Directors dated 19th August, 1989 dismissing the review application preferred by the petitioner and also sought the direction to the respondent bank to reinstate the petitioner with effect from the date of his suspension to his original post with all salary and allowances payable to the petitioner as if the petitioner continued in service all throughout with all increments and promotions and allowances admissible to the petitioner for the respective post and other benefits. The petitioner has also made separate prayer for declaring that the order of suspension passed on 13.9.1985 had come to an end inasmuch as the investigation by the police in the criminal offence mentioned in the order of suspension came to end without submitting the charge sheet soon after 18th October, 1985 and for consequential relief to direct the respondent bank to pay the petitioner all pay, salary and allowances admissible to the petitioner from 13.9.1985 to 6.8.1987 as if the petitioner was in continuous service during that period on the basis that there was no suspension order.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as probationary officer in the State Bank of Patiala of the respondent. The petitioner joined the services of the respondent bank at Kanpur Branch on 24th November, 1979 and he came to be confirmed on 24th November, 1981 and in February, 1982, he came to be transferred as Officer at Bombay and in November, 1984, the petitioner was transferred to Ahmedabad as Branch Manager. It is averred in the petition that Shah Alam Roza Branch of the respondent bank was started in November, 1984 and the petitioner took over as Branch Manager of the said Branch with effect from 10th December, 1984. Shah Alam Roza Branch was in small premises and it was decided by the authorities to have larger premises. For that purpose, an advertisement was published for suitable premises for the said branch in the month of August and November, 1984. Proposals were invited and were received by the Branch Manager, Ashram Road Branch, Ahmedabad and the applications were to be forwarded to the Regional Manager at Delhi. As further averred in the petition, the then Managing Director and the Zonal Manager, Delhi came to Ahmedabad on 12.2.1985 and they were accompanied by one Shri. S.K. Sharma, working in the office of the Deputy Director of Intelligence, Income Tax Department, Indraprastha Estate, New Delhi and they inspected two buildings, which were offered by said Shri. S.K. Sharma who accompanied them from Delhi. The offers for these two buildings were made by said Mr. Sharma on 12.2.1985. One of the offers was in the name of the wife of Mr. Sharma and the other one was in the name of her brother Shri SB Sharma. The petitioner had an occasion to report about one offer received in the name of M/s. Navyug Corporation which was owned by one Mr. K.M. Trivedi. The petitioner was not associated with the inspection of the two buildings offered by Shri S.K. Sharma of Delhi and he was kept in dark about the said activities. After the approval of the proposal of Shri. S.B. Sharma as per letter dated 16.4.1985 which came to be communicated to the petitioner on 20.4.1985, said building came to be purchased by said Shri S.B. Sharma under a Deed dated 30th April, 1985. Shri. S.B. Sharma came to the branch on 20.4.1985 and made endorsement on the duplicate of the letter dated 16.4.1985 received by him about accepting the terms and conditions laid down by the Ban
SupremeToday
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
