Back
1990 Supreme(All) 136
High Court of Allahabad
K.P.Singh & D.P.S.Chauhan, JJ.
Vipin Kumar Agarwal
Vs.
Board of Director
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 18375 of 1988
Decided On : Feb 21, 1990
Advocate Appeared:
B.P.Srivastava
A bank employee found guilty of embezzlement and irregularities cannot challenge an order of reversion to a lower post as punishment in a writ petition, especially when the employee has agreed to the proposed punishment and his conduct is not above board and fair.
Headnote:
SERVICE LAW - REVERSION - BANK EMPLOYEE - PUNISHMENT - LEGALITY - BANK EMPLOYEE FOUND GUILTY OF EMBEZZLEMENT AND IRREGULARITIES - REVERTED TO A LOWER POST - WHETHER LEGAL - HELD, NO - EMPLOYEE NOT ENTITLED TO INVOKE WRIT JURISDICTION - CONDUCT NOT ABOVE BOARD AND FAIR - ACCEPTED PROPOSED PUNISHMENT - CANNOT RAISE TECHNICAL PLEA.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a bank employee, was found guilty of embezzlement and irregularities. He was proposed to be reverted from the post of Branch Manager to Field Supervisor as punishment. Petitioner agreed to the proposed punishment but later challenged the order of reversion in a writ petition, arguing that he could not be reverted to a lower post than the one to which he was appointed.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the petitioner was not entitled to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The court found that the petitioner's conduct was not above board and fair, and that he had accepted the proposed punishment. The court also noted that the petitioner could be removed from the bank's service altogether, but the bank had accepted his request to retain him in service.
Issues: Whether a bank employee found guilty of embezzlement and irregularities can be reverted to a lower post as punishment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner could not challenge the order of reversion in a writ petition because he had agreed to the proposed punishment. The court also found that the petitioner's conduct was not above board and fair, and that he could be removed from the bank's service altogether. The court further noted that the petitioner could be reinstated as Branch Manager if his work was found satisfactory and he won the confidence of the bank authorities.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the petitioner was not entitled to the relief prayed for.
K.P.Singh, J.
1. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 18-6- 1988 and the order dated 21-6-1988 contained in Annexures II and III.
2. The petitioner was duly selected for the post of Probationary Officer and was appointed on 9-10-1984 in the scale of Rs. 690-1420. On 6-10- 1987 the petitioner was suspended and was served with a charge sheet. Most of the charges against the petitioner were proved and punishment of reversion from the post of Branch Manager to the post of Field Supervisor was proposed to be imposed on the petitioner as is evident from Annexure II attached with the writ petition. On 21-6-1988 the Chairman issued the punishment order which is contained in Annexure IN attached with the writ petition. It is note-worthy that the petitioner has filed a representation to the Board of Directors on 20-7-1988 as is evident from Annexure IV. The aforesaid representation was rejected by the Manager, Head Office through his order dated 20-8-1988, contained in Annexure V.
In the above-mentioned circumstances the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The main contention raised on behalf of the petitioner before us is to the effect that the petitioner has been reverted to a lower post than the post to which he was appointed. In this connection the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the ruling reported in AIR 1987 SC 1627 Hussain Sasansaheb Kaladgi v. State of Maharashtra.
3. The learned counsel for the contesting opposite party has submitted in reply that the petitioner was guilty of embezzlement, and he was liable to be removed from the service. On the representation of the petitioner to the effect that he was recently married and that he would be ruined if he was altogether removed from the service of the Bank, a lenient view has been taken and the petitioner has been retained in the service of the Bank. The petitioner cannot be permitted to play hide and seek. Once he agreed to the punishment proposed to be awarded, he cannot be heard in the exercise of writ jurisdiction by this Court. In this connection our attention has been drawn to Annexure V-C.A. attached with the counter affidavit. It has also been stressed by the learned counsel for the Bank that if the technical plea raised by the petitioner is accepted, the Bank should be made free to impose punishment in the light of the charges proved against the petitioner as legally permissible. According to the learned counsel for the Bank, the petitioner cannot be permitted to challenge the punishment when he had agreed to the proposed punishment.
4. We have considered the contentions raised on behalf of the parties. No doubt, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have indicated vide para 2 as below :
".........A direct recruit to a post, it cannot be gain said, cannot be reverted to a lower post. It is only a promotee who can be reverted from the promotion post to the lower post from which he was promoted. These propositions are so elementary that the same are incapable of being disputed and have not been disputed." .
Viewing from the angle of the above observations we think that the impugned order of punishment contained in Annexure lit suffers from an error of law but in the facts and circumstances of this case when the petitioner has been found-guilty of embezzlement and serious irregularities we do not consider it a fit case for interference in the exercise of our powers under Article 226 of the Constitution. The perusal of Annexure C. A. IV indicates the mistakes committed by the petitioner and it has been observed therein as below :-
"Uprokt se sabit hota hai ki Shri Vipin Kumar Agrawal ne Shri Amar Singh ko Maukhik Adesh Dekar arop Men vernit Antaran Jamaon ko apne- khate Men jama hone diya evam baad man sway am bhugtan prapt kar khatedaron ko bhugtan kiya..................................................................... Shri Agarwal ne Shri Amar Singh ke
