Back
2009 Supreme(Gau) 291
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI (AIZAWL BENCH)
H. Baruah, J.
Sh. Pazawna – Appellants
Vs.
State Bank of India and Ors. – Respondent
Decided On: 04.05.2009
The court emphasized the importance of procedural safeguards and the principle of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings. It highlighted that non-compliance with procedural safeguards may vitiate disciplinary actions, and the denial of the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses can lead to manifest injustice.
Headnote:
Departmental Inquiry - Violation of Rules and Principle of Natural Justice - Rules 7, 8, 3, 8, 4, 13 and 14, Vigilance Manual State Bank of India, Chapter-VIII - Findings of the Inquiry Officer and respondent No. 4, perversed - Punishment awarded set aside and quashed
Fact of the Case:
The writ petitioners were subjected to departmental inquiries for alleged misconduct while serving as Branch Managers in State Bank of India. The inquiries were clouded with irregularities and violations of natural justice, including non-production of witnesses for cross-examination and failure to supply relevant documents. The respondent authorities disagreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and imposed penalties, leading to the dismissal of one petitioner and reduction in rank of the other.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the departmental inquiries were conducted in violation of the rules governing such proceedings and in violation of the principle of natural justice. It noted that witnesses were not produced for cross-examination, and relevant documents were not supplied despite demand. The court concluded that there was apparent perversity of findings, leading to manifest injustice and violation of natural justice.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the irregularities and violations of natural justice in the departmental inquiries, the disagreement with the findings of the Inquiry Officer, and the imposition of penalties based on perversed findings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is limited to correcting errors of law or procedural errors leading to manifest injustice or violation of natural justice. In this case, the court found that the departmental inquiries suffered from violations of natural justice, leading to apparent perversity of findings. As a result, the punishment awarded by the respondent authorities was set aside and quashed.
Final Decision: The punishment awarded to the writ petitioners was set aside and quashed. The respondent authorities were directed to reinstate the writ petitioners in their previous posts with all consequential benefits. The respondent authorities were also given the option to initiate de novo departmental inquiries against the writ petitioners.
H. Baruah, J.
1. Facts involved though not similar in the above two writ petitions, same are proposed to be disposed of by a common judgment in view of involvement of similar questions of law. In the WP(C) No. 49 of 2008, the writ petitioner has challenged his dismissal order dated 11.7.2007, passed by respondent No. 3, while in writ petition No. 46 of 2008, the order reducing in rank of the writ petitioner dated 17.3.2007, passed by the respondent No. 3, has been put in challenge.
2. For better appreciation and understanding the appeals this Court proposes to place the facts involved in each case at this stage as under:
WP(C) No. 46 of 2008
Writ petitioner was appointed by respondent No. 1, in the year 1975, and was discharging his duties in different capacities in various branches within the jurisdiction of Northeast Circle. The writ petitioner while was serving as Branch Manager SBI, Darlawn Branch in the year 1975, and Lawngtlai Branch from 13.5.1999 to 31.12.2002, for misconduct committed during that period, respondent No. 4, with a view to hold a departmental inquiry, on 29.10.2004, served 7(seven) numbers of allegations asking show cause reply from the writ petitioner on me following allegations:
Allegation No. 1:
It is reported that a person named Shri F. Thangdinga, who was working in the Lai Autonomous District council as Range Officer (Forest Department) and who claimed to have a good relationship with you, acted as a negotiator to liaise between you and the prospective housing loan applicants. Shri F. Thangdinga also claimed that he had received 14(fourteen) housing loan proposals from various persons in the year 2000, and 6(six) or 7(seven) similar proposals in the year 2001, which were to be sanctioned by you. It is reported that each of the applicants had offered Rs.5000, to you for your favour. The money was allegedly accepted by Shri F. Thangdinga for handing over to you.
Allegation No. 2:
It is reported that you had received an amount of Rs.10,000, each from Shri A. Lalmingthanga and Shri K. Lalhuzauva both of Thingkah for financing housing loans to them.
Allegation No. 3:
You have sanctioned a cash credit limit of Rs.1,50,000, (Amount No. CC/1/8) to Shri F. Ramdinmawia, landlord of the Lawngtlai branch premises of State Bank of India, for setting up a general store. However, it was reported that no unit was established and the amount was used for his medical treatment. The matter was also not reported by you to your controller.
Allegation No. 4:
It is reported that you have sanctioned a cash credit limit of Rs.1,00,000, to Shri Vanlalchianga (CC/1/3) landlord of the State Bank of India, Lawngtlai Branch Manager's residence and an employee of Lai Autonomous District Council but not unit was set up.
Allegation No. 5:
It has been observed that 25 of the housing loan borrowers diverted their loan money for other purposes without constructing any houses. This was also not reported by you to your controller.
Allegation No. 6:
It has have observed that out the 140 piggery loans outstanding as on 30.11.2002, 106 loans were sanctioned by you to the employees of the Lai Autonomous District Council, most of whom diverted the funds for purposes other than setting up of piggery units. It has also been observed that most of the loans were sanctioned by you, without any proper schemes or as per unit cost prescribed by NABARD and as a result of fault repayment programmes, majority of the accounts have become overdue.
Allegation No. 7:
You had sanctioned the following overdrafts while you were working as Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Darlawn SAB during the year 1986:
Name of borrower Limit Date of sanction Present outstanding National interest
1. Sri K. Thanhlira, East Phaileng Rs.5,000 30.4.1986 - Rs.10,486
2. Sri Chhuanvawra, Ramhlun Venglai, Aizawl Rs.1,00,000 10.3.1986 - Rs.42,390
3. Sri Lalzalova College Veng, Aizawl Rs.50,000 11.6.1986 Rs.85.079 Rs.1,97,411
Total Rs.2,50,287
(i) You have sanctioned the above overdrafts in
