2020 Supreme(Jhk) 924

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Deepak Roshan, J.
Rama Shankar Singh – Petitioner
Versus
Central Bank of India, through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director and ors. – Respondents
W.P.(S) No.7540 of 2012
Decided On : 15-12-2020

Headnote:

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Central Bank of India Officers Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulation, 1976 – Regulation 4, Rule 6 – Compulsory Retirement – Writ application has been preferred for reliefs for issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) or a writ in nature of certiorari for quashing impugned order contained in letter by which a punishment order of compulsory retirement from Bank services in terms of Regulation 4(H) of Central Bank of India Officers Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulation, 1976 has been passed against petitioner – For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) or a writ in nature of certiorari for quashing order contained in letter by which appeal preferred as against order has been dismissed without considering appeal & materials available on record. – For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) or a writ in nature of certiorari for quashing of order contained in letter by which appeal for review as against inquiry report/findings of Inquiry Authority order contained in letter and order contained in letter have been dismissed without considering review appeal and materials available on record. – For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) to hold and declare that action of respondents is not legal and valid, as admittedly charges have not been proved, more so, recommendation of DA/AA for exoneration or lesser punishment have been suggested, but contrary to that, compulsory retirement has been passed only on direction of chief vigilance officer & Reviewing Authority has just observed formalities & dismissed review appeal (Annexure-21 & 23) without considering it & material available on record, which is impermissible in law. – For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) to hold and declare that orders passed by DA/AA are without application of their independent mind & are solely & wholly in obedience of chief vigilance officer (Respondent No.4) direction/recommendation & order of Reviewing Authority is without application of their mind and as such grossly illegal & vitiated by biasness, malice & prejudice both in Law as well as in facts and therefore, entire process of award of punishment is vitiated and nullity in law. – For issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) commanding upon respondents to produce recommendation & advice of Chief Vigilance Officer with respect to petitioner in aforesaid proceedings vis-à-vis, recommendations made by Disciplinary Authority & Appellate Authority which were not provided to Petitioner in spite of several requests (Annexure-15 & 18) and also to hold and declare that advice of Chief Vigilance Officer could not have been acted upon. – For further issuance of an appropriate writ(s)/order(s)/direction(s) as this Hon’ble Court may think just & proper in facts & circumstances of case doing conscionable justice to petitioner. – Held, Since regulation 6(5)(iii) read with 6(10)(a) requires a list of documents and list of witnesses to be enclosed with charge memo itself and since in this case, along with charge memo, neither list of witnesses nor list of documents were enclosed; same is against settled proposition of law and also against their own Regulation – Court is having no hesitation to hold that there is a procedural irregularity in passing impugned order of punishment. – As such, impugned order of punishment and all subsequent orders deserve to be quashed and set aside. – Normally, in such type of cases, matter should have been remitted back to competent authority to start proceeding from stage of irregularity commenced; by following principles of natural justice. – Petitioner has already retired on 31.3.2010 and at present he is about 74 years. – Further, case relates to year 1999 and calling management witness now will be a futile exercise; as such, no fruitful purpose would be served to remit case back to Disciplinary authority for compliance of mandatory requirements of Regulation. – Impugned Order contained in letter and all subsequent orders are hereby quashed and setaside. – Respondents are directed to give consequential benefits to petitioner. – Entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three months from date of receipt/production of copy of this Judgment – Writ Application Allowed And Disposed Of.