Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(All) 300

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
DONADI RAMESH, J.
Rabindra Kumar – Petitioner
Versus
Disciplinary Authority/Assistant General Manager (O.A.D.) and Others – Respondents
Writ (A) No. 4080 of 2022
Decided On : 01-02-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Indra Raj Singh, Adarsh Singh.
For the Respondents: Satish Chaturvedi, Sumit Kakkar.

IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a thorough inquiry and consideration of all relevant evidence before imposing penalties in employment disputes, emphasizing adherence to principles of natural justice and the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 2A.

Headnote:
Impersonation - Employment Dispute - Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 2A - The court discussed the petitioner's alleged impersonation during a written examination for employment, the subsequent disciplinary proceedings, and the dismissal from service. The court highlighted the application of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and emphasized the need for a thorough inquiry and consideration of all relevant evidence before imposing penalties.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, employed as an Assistant in S.B.I., was dismissed from service due to alleged impersonation during a written examination. The petitioner challenged the dismissal through a writ petition, citing irregularities in the inquiry process and violation of principles of natural justice.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority did not conduct a thorough inquiry and failed to consider all relevant evidence before imposing the penalty. The court set aside the dismissal orders and remanded the matter for a fresh inquiry, emphasizing the need for a detailed examination of all relevant records and evidence.
Issues: The issues revolved around the alleged impersonation during the written examination, the adequacy of the inquiry process, and the application of principles of natural justice in imposing penalties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of conducting a thorough inquiry and considering all relevant evidence before imposing penalties in employment disputes. It highlighted the need for adherence to principles of natural justice and the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 2A.
Final Decision: The court set aside the dismissal orders and remanded the matter for a fresh inquiry, directing the examination of all relevant records and evidence before taking further action.

JUDGMENT :

DONADI RAMESH, J.

1. Heard Sri Indra Raj Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sumit Kakkar, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner by the instant writ petition seeks quashing of the impugned order dated 29.11.2021 and 27.01.2022 passed by respondent no. 1 and 2 (Annexure Nos. 20 and 23).

3. The petitioner having graduate degree is eligible for the post of clerical staff. Pursuant to the notification, he has submitted Online Application form for selection in State Bank of India. The petitioner was issued an admit card bearing Roll No. 2201047741 with Registration No. 4136762 for appearing in the written examination scheduled to be held on 15.11.2009. Accordingly, the petitioner had appeared in the written examination on 15.11.2009 at Jwala Devi Vidya Mandir Post Graduate College, Anand Bag, Kanpur. The said examination was conduced in the presence of two invigilators including Bank invigilator. At the time of examination, the invigilators have matched the physical presence of the petitioner by verification of photographs, signatures and thumb impressions and after being fully satisfied, permitted the petitioner to appear and participate in the written examination. Accordingly, the petitioner passed the aforesaid written examination and was declared successful. Thereafter, he was called for interview which was scheduled to be held on 27.04.2010. The interview Board has verified the required documents in the presence of petitioner and after full satisfaction of the Bank Officials, interview has been conducted and final results were declared on 16.12.2010 in which the petitioner was declared as selected and the petitioner joined the said post of Assistant in S.B.I. Industrial Area Branch Khalilabad, District Sant Kabir Nagar on 16.12.2010. He discharged his duties with utmost satisfaction of authorities and basing on his performance, the authorities have recommended for confirmation on the post vide order dated 21.03.2012. Accordingly, his services were confirmed vide order dated 24.03.2012.

4. Under the misconception of facts, the third respondent had issued a charge memo on 03.09.2015, which reads as under:

5. Against the said charge, the petitioner has submitted his explanation on 09.09.2015 whereas the respondents were not satisfied with the explanation, therefore, the respondents conducted an enquiry and based on the report of incompetent hand writing expert Sri R. Krishna, declared charges to be proved against the petitioner. Based on the said inquiry report, the third respondent without application of mind passed an order on 04.05.2016 by dismissing the petitioner from service, as against the petitioner filed an appeal before the respondent no. 4 bringing the relevant facts to the notice of the Appellate Authority with prayer to set aside the punishment order. The appeal was rejected by the fourth respondent vide order dated 12.08.2016 in routine manner.

6. Aggrieved by the above action of the respondents, the petitioner preferred writ petition being Writ (A) No. 48511 of 2016 (Rabindra Kumar vs. State of U.P. and Others) and after exchange of counter and rejoinder affidavits, the said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 24.04.2018 with the following direction, which reads as under:

7. Despite the above directions, the respondents have not reinstated the petitioner into service nor paid the salaries. Hence the petitioner has pressed Contempt Application (Civil) No. 3685 of 2018. This Court issued notice to the respondent on 03.08.2018. Thereafter, this Court further passed an order on 30.12.2018 regarding quantum of sentence. Based on the order of this Court, passed in the contempt application, the petitioner was reinstated at Salempur Main Branch, State Bank of India, Deoria vide order dated 30.08.2018.

8. Again respondent no. 3 by order dated 01.10.2018 placed the petitioner under suspension and appointed one Sri Ritesh Sagar as Inquiry Officer, directing the petitioner to partici