2007(1) JLJ 429
Shantanu Kemkar, J.
Ramprasad Mandai v. Regional Manager, Central Bank of India,
Shahdol and others
Writ Petition No. 4079 of 1994 (Jabalpur); Decided on 20.4.2006.
The petitioner contends that on receipt of his reply to the memos issued to him, the respondents did not take any action for considerable long period. In view of this delay he contends that the respondents could not have issued him the charge-sheet on the basis of stale material. He alleges that the respondents proceeded in the enquiry in a hot haste manner denying him a reasonable, effective and adequate opportunity to defend his case and lead evidence. The petitioner further alleges that in spite of repeated directions of the enquiry officer and in spite of seeking time to produce the relevant documents demanded by him, the Presenting Officer appearing for the respondents did not produce the same. He contends that the enquiry officer, without waiting for the said material and important documents, closed the enquiry, thereby caused great prejudice to him. He submits that though the matter was adjourned for several occasions for recording the evidence of the respondents but he was not afforded even breathing time by the enquiry officer to produce his material witnesses. The petitioner also contends that the disciplinary authority, although agreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer on other points, held that the charge No.7, reported to be partly proved, was rather fully proved, then before recording its own finding on such charge it ought to have recorded its tentative reasons for such disagreement and ought to have given him an opportunity to represent. The petitioner alleges that the appellate authority has dismissed the appeal mechanically by a non-speaking order. [Para 3
Held: The petitioner requested for supply of various documents including 100% audit report on the basis of which the charge-sheet was issued to him. The respondents on number of occasions requested for grant of time to produce documents. The enquiry proceedings reveal that the enquiry officer did not reject the petitioner‘s prayer to produce the said documents from the respondents. It was also not the case that the documents were being demanded as a dilly-dally tactics on the part of the petitioner or his intention was to stall the enquiry by any means. In this background, the closing of the enquiry without getting the documents produced on record amounts to denial of fair opportunity to the petitioner. [Para 8
(2) Civil Servant -- departmental enquiry -- material witnesses not allowed to be examined -- principles of natural justice failed to be observed. [Para 9
(3) Civil Servant -- departmental enquiry -- enquiry authority finding one charge not proved n disciplinary authority, without giving opportunity of hearing, cannot reverse such finding -- it amounts to denial of opportunity of hearing and violation of principles of natural justice. (1998)7 SCC 84, AIR 1999 SC 3734 and (2003)2 SCC 449 followed. [Para 10
(4) Appeal -- against order of dismissal from service n authority is required to consider grounds raised by delinquent employee -- order should be a reasoned one -- else liable to be quashed. [Para 11
(5) Civil Servant -- departmental enquiry -- delay successfully explained -- charge-sheet and disciplinary proceedings cannot be quashed. [Para 6
¼1½ flfoy lsod& &foHkkxh tk¡p& &çR;FkhZx.k ls lqlaxr nLrkost is‘k djus dks dgk x;k& &vusd voljksa ij og nLrkost is‘k djus ds fy, le; ek¡xk x;k& &,sls nLrkost is‘k fd, x, fcuk tk¡p dh lekfIr ;kph dks _tq volj ls oafpr djuk gSA ;kph dk ladFku gS fd mls tkjh fd, x, Kkiuksa ds mlds mÙkjksa dh çkfIr ij çR;FkhZx.k us dkQh yacs le; rd dksbZ dk;Zokgh ugha dhA mldk ladFku gS fd bl foyac dh n`f"V ls] çR;FkhZx.k cklh lkexzh ds vk/kkj ij mls vkjksii= tkjh ugha dj ldrs FksA mudk vfHkdFku gS fd çR;FkhZx.k us mls vius ekeys dh çfrj{kk djus vkSj lk{; is‘k djus ds ;qfDr;qDr] çHkkoh vkSj i;kZIr volj ls oafpr djrs gq, tk¡p dh dk;Zokgh gM+cM+h esa dhA ;kph dk ;g vkSj vfHkdFku gS fd tk¡p vf/kdkjh }kjk ckj&ckj funs‘k fn, tkus ds ckotwn rFkk mlds }kjk ek¡xs x, lqlaxr nLrkost is‘k djus ds fy, le; ek¡xus ds ckotwn çR;FkhZx.k ds fy, milatkr çLrqfr vf/kdkjh us mUgsa is‘k ugha fd;kA mudk ladFku gS fd tk¡p vf/kdkjh us mDr lkexzh vkSj egRoiw.kZ nLrkostksa dh çrh{kk fd, fcuk tk¡p lekIr dj nh vkSj rn~}kjk og cgqr çfrdwyr% çHkkfor gqvk gSA mUgksaus fuosnu fd;k fd ;|fi çR;FkhZx.k dk lk{; vfHkfyf[kr djus ds fy, ekeyk vusd voljksa ij LFkfxr fd;k x;k] rFkkfi tk¡p vf/kdkjh }kjk mls vius rkfRod lk{kh is‘k djus ds fy, lk¡l ysus dk Hkh le; ugha fn;k x;kA ;kph dk ;g Hkh ladFku gS fd vuq‘kklfud çkf/kdkjh us ;|fi og vU; fcanqvksa ij tk¡p vf/kdkjh ds fu"d"kks± ls lger Fkk] vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k fd Hkkxr% lkfcr Kkfir vkjksi Ø-7 fu‘p; gh iw.kZr% lkfcr gS] fQj ml vkjksi ds laaca/k esa viuk Lo;a dk fu"d"kZ vfHkfyf[kr djus ds iwoZ mls bl çdkj vlger gksus ds fy, vius çkjafHkd dkj.k vfHkfyf[kr djuk pkfg, Fks rFkk mls vH;kosnu djus dk volj nsuk pkfg, FkkA ;kph dk vfHkdFku gS fd vihy çkf/kdkjh us vuk[;kid vkns‘k }kjk vihy ;a=or [kkfjt dj nh gSA ¼iSjk 3½ vfHkfu/kkZfjr % ;kph us fofHkUu nLrkost çnk; fd, tkus dk vuqjks/k fd;k ftlesa og 100 çfr‘kr laijh{kk fjiksVZ lfEefyr gS ftlds vk/kkj ij mls vkjksii= tkjh fd;k x;k FkkA çR;FkhZx.k us vusd voljksa ij nLrkost is‘k djus ds fy, le; fn, tkus dk vuqjks/k fd;kA tk¡p dk;Zokgh ls çdV gksrk gS fd tk¡p vf/kdkjh us çR;FkhZx.k ls mDr nLrkost is‘k djokus dh ;kph dh çkFkZuk ukeatwj ugha dhA ;g ekeyk Hkh ugha Fkk nLrkostksa dh ek¡x ;kph dh vksj ls foyacdkjksa ;qfDr ds :i esa dh tk jgh Fkh ;k mldk vk‘k; fdlh Hkh çdkj tk¡p esa ck/kk Mkyus dk FkkA bl i`"BHkwfe esa] nLrkost vfHkys[k ij is‘k djok, fcuk tk¡p dh lekfIr ;kph dks _tq volj ls oafpr djuk gSA ¼iSjk 8½ ¼2½ flfoy lsod& &foHkkxh tk¡p& &rkfRod lkf{k;ksa dh ijh{kk ugha djus nh xbZ& &uSlfxZd U;k; ds fl)karksa dk ikyu ugha fd;k x;kA ¼iSjk 9½ ¼3½ flfoy lsod& &foHkkxh tk¡p& &tk¡p vf/kdkjh ds fu"d"kZ esa ,d vkjksi lkfcr ugha& &vuq‘kklfud çkf/kdkjh lquokbZ dk volj fn, fcuk ,slk fu"d"kZ myV ugha ldrk& &;g lquokbZ ds volj ls oafpr djus vkSj uSlfxZd U;k; ds fl)karksa dk vfrØe.k djus dh dksfV esa vkrk gSA ¼1998½7 ,l lh lh 84] , vkb vkj 1999 ,l lh 3734 rFkk ¼2003½2 ,l lh lh 449 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 10½ ¼4½ vihy& &lsok ls gVk, tkus ds vkns‘k ds fo#)& &çkf/kdkjh ls visf{kr gS fd vipkjh deZpkjh }kjk crk, x, vk/kkjksa ij fopkj djs& &vkns‘k ldkj.k gksuk pkfg,& &vUFkk vfHk[kafMr fd, tkus ;ksX; gksxkA ¼iSjk 11½ ¼5½ flfoy lsod& &foHkkxh tk¡p& &foyac lQyrkiwoZd Li"VhÑr& &vkjksii= vkSj vuq‘kklfud dk;Zokgh vfHk[kafMr ugha fd, tk ldrsA ¼iSjk 6½
1. By filing this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.2.1993 (Annexure P-1) by which he has been dismissed from service and also the order dated 18.8.1994 (Annexure P-2) by which the appeal preferred by him against the said dismissal order has been rejected.
2. The petitioner was working as Branch Manager in the respondent Bank. He was posted in Amjhor Branch district Shahdo1 during the period June, 1984 to May, 1986. The respondent Bank issued three memos dated 24.5.1986 (Annexure P-3), 28.5.1986 (Annexure P-4) and 11.2.1988 (Annexure P-5) to him alleging various irregularities committed by him during his posting at Amjhor. The petitioner replied the aforesaid memos immediately after receipt of the same. On 4.5.1990 the petitioner was issued a charge-sheet (Annexure P-6) alleging the lapses/irregularities which were alleged in the aforesaid memos. Thereafter, the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him by the respondents. The enquiry officer after conducting enquiry submitted a report holding that some of the charges were proved, some of the charges were partly proved and some of the charges were not proved. The disciplinary authority, while accepting the finding of the enquiry officer to the extent that some charges were proved and some of the charges were not proved, however, did not agree with the report of the enquiry officer as regards the finding that the charge No.7 was partly proved. The disciplinary authority held that the charge No.7 was fully proved. In that view, on consideration of the material, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of dismissal of the petitioner from service. The petitioner unsuccessfully appealed against the order of dismissal before the appellate authority. Thereafter, he filed this writ petition challenging the order of dismissal from service and the appellate order.
3. The petitioner contends that on receipt of his reply to the memos issued to him, the respondents did not take any action for considerable long period. In view of this delay he contends that the respondents could not have issued him the charge-sheet on the basis of stale material. He alleges that the respondents proceeded in the enquiry in a hot haste manner denying him a reasonable, effective and adequate opportunity to defend his case and lead evidence. The petitioner further alleges that in spite of repeated directions of the enquiry officer and in spite of seeking time to produce the relevant documents demanded by him. the Presenting Officer appearing for the respondents did not produce the same. He contends that the enquiry officer, without waiting for the said material and important documents, closed the enquiry, thereby caused great prejudice to him. He submits that though the matter was adjourned for several occasions for recording the evidence of the respondents but he was not afforded even breathing time by the enquiry officer to produce his material witnesses. The petitioner also contends that the disciplinary authority, although agreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer on other points, held that the charge No.7, reported to be partly proved, was rather fully proved, , then before recording its own finding on such charge it ought to have recorded its tentative reasons for such disagreement and ought to have given him an opportunity to represent. The petitioner alleges that the appellate authority has dismissed the appeal mechanically by a non-, speaking order. He contends that he appellate authority having failed to appreciate the grounds raised by him in his appeal, the said order of the appellate authority is not sustainable.
4. The respondent-Bank contends that the charge-sheet issued to the petitioner was not based on the stale material, but, after issuance of memos and on receipt of the petitioner's reply the matter was further investigated. The respondent contend that after verification on the basis
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.