Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
BIREN VAISHNAV, J.
SHAIKH TASNIMUDDIN ILMUDDIN – Petitioner
Versus
PRADEEP SRIVASTAVA – Respondent
Special Civil Application No. 5965 of 2019
Decided On : 22-07-2022
DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE - BANK EMPLOYEE - PUNISHMENT OF DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE IMPOSED ON THE PETITIONER BY THE CHAIRMAN AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY OF THE BANK - UPHELD BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY - CHALLENGE - PETITIONER WAS CHARGED WITH GROSS INSUBORDINATION, INDECENT AND DISORDERLY BEHAVIOUR, PERSISTENT DISOBEDIENCE OF INSTRUCTIONS OF HIGHER AUTHORITIES, NON-OBSERVANCE OF PUNCTUALITY OF TIMING AND REMAINING FREQUENTLY ABSENT FROM DUTY UNAUTHORIZEDLY - INQUIRY OFFICER FOUND ALL THE CHARGES PROVED - PETITIONER DID NOT SUBMIT ANY DEFENCE - EARLIER, DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS WERE INSTITUTED AGAINST THE PETITIONER TWICE FOR BEING ABSENT AND NOT BEING PUNCTUAL AND HE WAS WARNED NOT TO REPEAT THE SAME - PETITIONER HAD ASSURED THE BANK THAT HE WOULD IMPROVE HIS CONDUCT, BUT HE FAILED TO DO SO - PETITIONER WAS DISMISSED FROM SERVICE ON 23.6.2000 - PETITIONER CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF DISMISSAL BEFORE THE HIGH COURT, WHICH DISMISSED THE PETITION AS PREMATURE AS THERE WAS A REMEDY BY WAY OF AN APPEAL - PETITIONER FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY, WHICH WAS DISMISSED - PETITIONER AGAIN CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF DISMISSAL BEFORE THE HIGH COURT, WHICH DIRECTED THE BANK TO DECIDE THE APPEAL BY TREATING THE MEMO OF SCA 6093 OF 2000 AS GROUNDS OF APPEAL - BANK PASSED AN ORDER UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF DISMISSAL - PETITIONER CHALLENGED THE SAID ORDER BEFORE THE HIGH COURT - HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAD CONSIDERED THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE MEMO OF SCA 6093 OF 2000 AND GIVEN REASONS FOR DISAGREEING WITH THEM - HIGH COURT ALSO HELD THAT THE PETITIONER HAD FAILED TO SHOW ANY PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITIES IN THE DISMISSAL ORDER - PETITION DISMISSED.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was a Branch Manager of the respondent Bank. He was served with three different charge-sheets alleging unauthorized absenteeism and impunctuality. He was found guilty of the alleged misconduct and was visited with three different penalties in the said three proceedings. The petitioner accepted the punishment imposed upon him during the first two inquiries by not challenging the same in departmental appeal. So far as the third inquiry is concerned, the petitioner filed an appeal on 06.12.1999 challenging the issuance of charge-sheet to him. The said appeal was not decided; but eventually during the pendency of this petition, the petitioner was communicated that the said appeal being beyond the specified period of 30 days under the relevant regulations, has not been entertained. The petitioner demanded the order rejecting his appeal which was not made available to him, but the respondent insisted that the communication was sufficient disposal of the appeal. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioner is unable to counter the submissions made by learned Counsel for the respondent that no appeal against the charge-sheet is contemplated under the relevant regulations. In that view of the matter, the prayer of the petitioner asking the respondent to decide the appeal filed against the third charge-sheet cannot be granted. The same is, therefore, declined.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the Appellate Authority had considered the grounds raised in the Memo of SCA 6093 of 2000 and given reasons for disagreeing with them. The High Court also held that the petitioner had failed to show any procedural irregularities in the dismissal order.
Issues: Whether the Appellate Authority had considered the grounds raised in the Memo of SCA 6093 of 2000 and given reasons for disagreeing with them.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court held that the Appellate Authority had considered the grounds raised in the Memo of SCA 6093 of 2000 and given reasons for disagreeing with them. The High Court also held that the petitioner had failed to show any procedural irregularities in the dismissal order.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
BIREN VAISHNAV, J.
1. By the way of this under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner is challenging the order of the Appellate Authority dated 26.11.2018 by which the appellate Authority has confirmed the order of dismissal dated 23.06.2000.
2. Facts in brief as set out in the earlier rounds of litigation at the hands of the Petitioner have been elicited in one of the Oral Order dated 24.8.2018 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1085 of 2017 by the Division Bench of this Court and therefore to avoid duplicity, the Order dated 24.8.2018 is reproduced hereunder:
2. Before adverting to the submissions of the appellant, this court deems it appropriate to incorporate necessary facts.
3. The appellant was serving as a Branch Manager and he was confirmed on the said post on 25.10.1990. Thereafter, he was imposed punishment of stoppage of four increments vide order dated 11.3.1997 pursuant to the charge sheet dated 6.7.1995. Second charge sheet dated 14.7.1997 was served upon him for the act of omission and commission and was also awarded lowering down of basic pay by three increments vide order dated 20.3.1998. The aforesaid penalties were challenged by the appellant before the Board and thereafter he has accepted the same as it was not challenged before any court of law. Thereafter, third charge sheet dated 20.8.1998 was issued against him which culminated into punishment of dismissal from the bank’s services vide order dated 23.6.2000. The appellant thereafter preferred appeal before the Board on 13.7.2000 against the aforesaid order of dismissal. It is asserted by the appellant that his appeal dated 13.07.2000 till today remains undecided.
4. The appellant challenged the dismissal order in writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 6093 of 2000 before this court. The same was dismissed vide order dated 3.2.2012 on merits. It was also observed that the petition was premature since the an alternative remedy of appeal under Regulation 31(1) was also available. Against the said order Letters Patent Appeal No. 501 of 2013 was preferred by the appellant before the Division Bench. The same was permitted to be withdrawn vide order dated 8.4.2013 since the appellant wanted to file review on the order dated 3.2.2012 passed by the learned single judge. It is pertinent to note that the Division Bench had recorded the statement of the appellant that the departmental appeal filed by him was still pending. Thereafter, the appellant filed Misc. Civil Application No. 1815 of 2014 for Review. By the order dated 04.07.2014, the learned single judge allowed the review application and recalled the order dated 03.02.2012 and modified the order to the extent by treating the writ petition being Special Civil Application No. 6093 of 2000 as withdrawn to enable the appellant to purse the representation made before the Board with respect. Thus, the entire writ petition was allowed to be withdrawn.
5. Since the aforesaid appeal remained undecided
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
