Back
2006 Supreme(All) 1395
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
S.N. Srivastava, J.
V K JAISWAL
Versus
GENERAL MANAGER ADMINISTRATION U P SAHKARI GRAM VIKAS BANK LTD
Decided On : 08 May 2006
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to adhere to the principles of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings and the necessity of providing reasons in appellate orders.
Headnote:
Natural Justice - U. P. Cooperative Societies Employees Regulations - Regulation 85 (vii), Regulation 84 - The court found that the principles of natural justice were not observed in the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. The impugned orders were quashed, and the petitioner was entitled to full salary for the period of suspension.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was placed under suspension and awarded censure entry for alleged misconduct. The petitioner challenged the orders on the grounds of non-compliance with natural justice principles and refusal to pay salary for the period of suspension.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the disciplinary proceedings did not adhere to the principles of natural justice and the orders were unsustainable in law. The appellate authority's order rejecting the appeal was also found to be cryptic and lacking objective consideration.
Issues: Non-compliance with natural justice principles, refusal to pay salary for the period of suspension, and inadequacy of the appellate authority's order.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of observing natural justice principles in disciplinary proceedings and the need for providing reasons in appellate orders. It cited relevant case law to support its findings.
Final Decision: The impugned orders were quashed, and the petitioner was entitled to full salary for the period of suspension.
( 1 ) IMPUGNED here are the orders dated 3. 11. 1998 passed by Managing Director U. P. Sahkari gram Vikas Bank Ltd. whereby the petitioner was awarded censure entry for not discharging his duties with diligence and further forfeiting the salary for the period of suspension except the subsistence allowance and 23. 4. 1999 passed by appellate authority whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected.
( 2 ) FROM a perusal of the record it would transpire that the petitioner was placed under suspension in contemplation of enquiry by means of order dated 4. 10. 1997 which was passed in exercise of power under Regulation 85 (vii) of the U. P. Cooperative Societies Employees Regulations, 1975 on the charges that the matter of missing of receipt No. 18 was not reported to the superior authorities and further that the petitioner made use of the cash receipt book quite irregularly to the detriment of the interest of the Bank. Subsequently, charge-sheet was drawn vide charge-sheet dated 27. 1. 1998 and enquiry was embarked upon. In the final analysis, it was found that it was not a case involving major penalty and consequently, while taking decision not to pursue enquiry, penally of censure entry was inflicted on the petitioner. It would further appear from the record that the petitioner was denied salary for the period of suspension although he was treated on duty for the aforesaid period vide order dated 3. 11. 1993. It is in this backdrop that the petitioner aggrieved by the impugned orders instituted the present petition.
( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner began submission canvassing that charges contained in the charge-sheet have not been brought home against the petitioner and further that disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority scantly dealt with the charge in the impugned orders and the orders impugned have been passed without assigning any reasons and no finding has been recorded about guilt of the petitioner. It is further canvassed that the order is without application of mind to the reply submitted to the charge-sheet and other materials on record and therefore the same is unsustainable in law. Lastly, it has been canvassed that under the provisions of regulation 85 (vii) of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975, it is envisaged that the authority could place a person under suspension only when it is a case of removal, dismissal or reduction in rank and this admittedly being not the case the order of suspension was vitiated and the authorities erred in law in refusing to pay salary for the period of suspension. In the counter-affidavit filed by opposite parties, the reply to averments is confined to the statement that the petitioner was given opportunity of hearing and hence the order is liable to be maintained.
( 4 ) BEFORE proceeding further, it would be useful to refer to Regulation 85 (1) of the U. P. Co-operative Societies Employees Regulations 1975 which envisages that the disciplinary proceedings against an employee shall be conducted by the Inquiring Officer referred to in clause (iv) with due observance of the principles of natural justice for which it shall be necessary that (a) The employee shall be served with a charge-sheet containing specific charges and mention of evidence in support of each charge and he shall be required to submit explanation in respect of the charges within reasonable time which shall not be less than fifteen days; (b) Such an employee shall also be given an opportunity to produce at his own cost or to cross examine witnesses in his defence and shall also be given an opportunity of being heard in person If he so desires; (c) If no explanation in respect of charge-sheet is received or the explanation submitted is unsatisfactory, the competent authority may award him appropriate punishment considered necessary. Regulation 84 deals with penalties including censure entry as envisaged in Regulation 84 (a ).
