Back
2012(1) JLJ 307
Sujoy Paul, J.
Vikram Sharma v. State Bank of Indore
Writ Petition (S) No.1096 of 2009 (Gwalior); Decided on 10.11.2011.
Held : On the basis of aforesaid analysis, I have no hesitation to hold that the departmental enquiry is vitiated because of recording of statements of prosecution witnesses continuously without putting them to cross-examination. The enquiry is also vitiated because there is no material on record to show that the said telegram was ever issued or served on the petitioner. There is no material on record which shows that there is any valid service of dates of enquiry on the petitioner after the date when telegram was directed to be issued. Proceeding ex parte, abruptly, depriving from adjournment despite genuine ground and closing enquiry without cross-examination and evidence in rebuttal also vitiates the enquiry. In this view of the matter, the petitioner‘s valuable right to defend himself in a reasonable and effective manner flowing from Article 14 of the Constitution is infringed and taken away. Accordingly, I hold that the enquiry from the stage indicated above, punishment order and appellate order stand vitiated. However, liberty is reserved to the respondents to conduct the enquiry from the stage of recording of statement of prosecution witnesses as per law. (2004)7 SCC 581, (1996)9 SCC 322 and AIR 1991 SC 1221 followed.
(2) Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 -- S.2(s) -- departmental enquiry -- no disputed questions of facts involved -- also no documents disputed by either side -- no need of relegation of matter for availing a statutory alternative remedy -- writ proceeding appropriate. (2005)6 SCC 725, (2006)1 SCC 567, (2004)9 SCC 786, (2000)5 SCC 531 and (2003)4 SCC 364 distinguished. [Para 5
(3) Constitution of India -- Art.226 -- petition admitted long back -- no disputed questions of facts involved -- cannot be thrown technically to avail the alternative remedy. 2002(5) MPLJ 161, (2003)2 SCC 107 and 2008(3) JLJ 64 referred to. [Para 6
(4) Public Servant -- departmental enquiry -- non-supply of documents -- unless causes serious prejudice -- will not vitiate the enquiry. (2005)8 SCC 211 and (2011)2 SCC 316 followed. [Para 9
(5) Public Servant -- disciplinary proceedings -- enquiry officer -- only an agent of disciplinary authority -- has no authority, jurisdiction and competence to either change himself or to give finding on such an application -- only disciplinary authority can consider such an application. [Para 10
(6) Public Servant -- disciplinary proceedings -- mere allegation of bias -- cuts no ice -- needs sufficient material to establish the actual likelihood of bias on the part of enquiry officer. (2001)2 SCC 330 and (2006)5 SCC 201 followed. (2010)10 SCC 539 distinguished. [Para 11
(7) Public Servant -- disciplinary proceedings -- departmental enquiry against petitioner -- criminal case upon same facts also pending -- enquiry cannot be unduly delayed on this ground -- waiting for conclusion of criminal case not must for enquiry. AIR 1988 SC 2118 and (1999)3 SCC 679 followed. [Para 12
(8) Constitution of India -- Art.14 -- departmental enquiry against petitioner -- request of petitioner to change the handwriting expert declined -- enquiry cannot stand vitiated on this score -- because existing expert authorised and licensed -- no violation of principles of natural justice -- also no infringement of any legal, valuable or statutory right of petitioner. [Para 13
¼1½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq-14 && foHkkxh; tk¡p && ;kph lsok ls gVk;k x;k && uSlfxZd U;k; ds fl)karksa dk vuqlj.k u fd, tkus ds dkj.k tk¡p nwf"kr && rFkkfi] fof/k ds vuqlkj u, fljs ls tk¡p djus dh Lora=rk && fiNyh etnwjh dk iz‘u ubZ tk¡p ds ifj.kke ij fuHkZj djsxk && ;kph gVk, tkus ds fnukad ls fuyacu ds v/khu ekuk tk,xkA vfHkfu/kkZfjr % iwoksZDr fo‘ys"k.k ds vk/kkj ij] eq>s ;g vfHkfu/kkZfjr djus esa dksbZ fgpd ugha gS fd foHkkxh; tk¡p vfHk;kstu lkf{k;ksa ds dFku mudh izfrijh{kk fd, fcuk fujarj vfHkfyf[kr fd, tkus ds dkj.k nwf"kr gqbZ gSA tk¡p blfy, Hkh nwf"kr gqbZ gS D;ksafd vfHkys[k ij ;g nf‘kZr djus ds fy, dksbZ lkexzh ugha gS fd dfFkr Vsyhxzke dHkh tkjh fd;k x;k Fkk ;kph ij mldh rkehy dh xbZA vfHkys[k ij ,slh dksbZ lkexzh ugha gS ftlls ;g nf‘kZr gksrk gks fd fnukad ds i‘pkr~ tc Vsyhxzke tkjh fd, tkus dk funs‘k fn;k x;k rc ;kph dks tk¡p ds fnukadksa dh dksbZ fof/kekU; rkehy gqbZA vdLekr~ ,di{kh; dk;Zokgh djuk] izkekf.kd vk/kkj ds ckotwn LFkxu ls oafpr djuk rFkk [kaMu esa izfrijh{kk rFkk lk{; ds fcuk tk¡p can djuk Hkh tk¡p dks nwf"kr djrk gSA ekeys dks bl n`f"V ls ns[kus ij] lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn 14 ls vkus okys ;kph ds ;qfDr;qDr rFkk izHkkoh jhfr ls Lo;a dh izfrj{kk djus ds ewY;oku~ vf/kdkj dk vfrya?ku gqvk gS rFkk bls Nhuk x;k gSA rnuqlkj] eSa vfHkfu/kkZfjr djrk gw¡ fd Åij minf‘kZr izØe ls tk¡p] naM dk vkns‘k rFkk vihy vkns‘k nwf"kr gksrk gSA rFkkfi] izR;FkhZx.k dks vfHk;kstu lkf{k;ksa ds dFku vfHkfyf[kr djus ds izØe ls fof/k ds vuqlkj tk¡p djus dh Lora=rk vkjf{kr dh tkrh gSA ¼2004½7 ,l lh lh 581] ¼1996½9 ,l lh lh 322 rFkk , vkb vkj 1991 ,l lh 1221 vuqlfjrA ¼2½ vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/kfu;e] 1947 && /kkjk 2¼/k½ && foHkkxh; tk¡p && rF;ksa ds fookfnr iz‘u lfEefyr ugha && nLrkost Hkh fdlh Hkh i{k }kjk fookfnr ugha && dkuwuh oSdfYid mipkj izkIr djus ds fy, ekeys dks lkSaius dh vko‘;drk ugha && fjV dk;Zokgh leqfprA ¼2005½6 ,l lh lh 725] ¼2006½1 ,l lh lh 567] ¼2004½9 ,l lh lh 786] ¼2000½5 ,l lh lh 531 rFkk ¼2003½4 ,l lh lh 364 izHksfnrA ¼iSjk 5 ¼3½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq-226 && ;kfpdk yacs le; iwoZ xzg.k dh xbZ && rF;ksa ds fookfnr iz‘u lfEefyr ugha && rduhdh :i ls oSdfYid mipkj izkIr djus ds fy, R;Dr ugha dh tk ldrhA 2002¼5½ ,e ih ,y ts 161] ¼2003½2 ,l lh lh 211 rFkk ¼2011½2 ,l lh lh 316 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 6 ¼4½ yksd lsod && foHkkxh; tk¡p && nLrkostksa dh vukiwfrZ && tc rd xaHkhj izfrdwy izHkko u Mkys && tk¡p dks nwf"kr ugha djsxhA ¼2005½8 ,l lh lh 211 rFkk ¼2011½2 ,l lh lh 316 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 9 ¼5½ yksd lsod && vuq‘kklfud dk;Zokgh && tk¡p vf/kdkjh && vuq‘kklfud izkf/kdkjh dk vfHkdrkZ ek= && Lo;a dks ifjofrZr djus ;k ,sls vkosnu ij fu"d"kZ nsus dk izkf/kdkj] vf/kdkfjrk ;k leFkZrk ugha j[krk && vuq‘kklfud vf/kdkjh gh ,sls vkosnu ij fopkj dj ldrk gSA ¼iSjk 10 ¼6½ yksd lsod && vuq‘kklfud dk;Zokgh && i{kikr dk vkjksi ek= && fu"Qy gksrk gS && tk¡p vf/kdkjh dh vksj ls i{kikr dh okLrfod laHkkouk LFkkfir djus ds fy, i;kZIr lkexzh dh vko‘;drkA ¼2001½2 ,l lh lh 330 rFkk ¼2006½5 ,l lh lh 201 vuqlfjrA ¼2010½10 ,l lh lh 539 izHksfnrA ¼iSjk 11 ¼7½ yksd lsod && vuq‘kklfud dk;Zokgh && ;kph ds fo:) foHkkxh; tk¡p && mUgha rF;ksa ij nkafMd ekeyk Hkh yafcr && bl vk/kkj ij tk¡p vlE;d~ :i ls foyafcr ugha dh tk ldrh && nkafMd ekeys ds fu"d"kZ dh izrh{kk tk¡p ds fy, vR;ko‘;d ughaA , vkb vkj 1988 ,l lh 2118 rFkk ¼1999½3 ,l lh lh 679 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 12 ¼8½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku && vuq-14 && ;kph ds fo:) foHkkxh; tk¡p && ;kph dh gLrys{k fo‘ks"kK dks ifjofrZr djus dh izkFkZuk ukeatwj && bl dkj.k ls tk¡p nwf"kr ugha gks ldrh && D;ksafd fo|eku fo‘ks"kK izkf/kd`r rFkk vuqKIr && uSlfxZd U;k; ds fl)karksa dk dksbZ vfrØe.k ugha && ;kph ds fdlh fof/kd] ewY;oku~ ;k dkuwuh vf/kdkj dk Hkh vfrya?ku ughaA ¼iSjk 13
1. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of this matter are as under :
2. The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution to assail the disciplinary proceedings, which ended with imposition of punishment of “removal from service with superannuation benefits, i.e., pension and/or provident fund and gratuity as would be due otherwise in the Rules of Regulation prevailing at the relevant time and without disqualification from future employment”. The petitioner after unsuccessfully challenging this removal order dated 1.4.2008 before departmental appellate authority, filed this writ petition. The appellate authority by order dated 5.9.2008 rejected the said appeal.
3. Shri S.K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the procedural part of the departmental enquiry and also the enquiry report, punishment and appellate orders. Shri S.K. Singh, in nutshell, raised following points :
(a) The documents on the strength of which charge-sheet was drawn were also not provided to the petitioner;
(b) The documents which were demanded by the petitioner to defend himself were not provided to him;
(c) The preliminary enquiry officer was higher/superior in rank qua the enquiry officer in the regular departmental enquiry, which vitiates the enquiry;
(d) For the same set of allegations the petitioner is subjected to a criminal case and since both are grounded upon the same set of facts, the departmental enquiry should have been kept in abeyance;
(e) The petitioner prayed for change of enquiry officer on the ground of bias against him, which was illegally declined;
(f) The petitioner’s application for getting the handwriting examined by Government authorities at Calcutta was illegally declined;
(g) The petitioner’s right of reasonable defence in the enquiry was taken away. He was not permitted to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses and lead his own evidence;
(h) The petitioner was made scapegoat and there is discrimination in imposition of punishment.
4. Shri S.K. Rao, learned counsel, on the other hand vehemently opposed the petition and raised a preliminary objection that the petitioner was a “Award Staff” and was working as Computer Technical Officer (CTO), an employee of clerical cadre. Shri Rao submits that since he belongs to an award staff, he is a “workman” within the meaning of section 2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and, therefore, he has a statutory, alternative and efficacious remedy to get his grievances redressed before the Industrial Tribunal. In support of the aforesaid preliminary objection, Shri Rao relied on (2005)6 SCC 725 (Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. v. Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. Employees Union); (2006)1 SCC 567 (State of Karnataka v. KGSD Canteen Employees’ Welfare Association); (2004)9 SCC 786 (National Textile Corporation Ltd. v. Haribox Swalram); (2000)5 SCC 531 (State Bank of India v. State Bank of India Canteen Employee’s Union (Bengal Circle)); and (2003)4 SCC 364 (Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank v. P.C. Kakkar). On the strength of these authorities, Shri Rao submits that the petitioner should be relegated to avail the alternative remedy under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
5. Dealing with the preliminary objection first, in the opinion of this Court, none of the judgments cited by learned senior counsel are applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case. Each judgment cited by learned senior counsel shows that in all those cases there was a serious dispute of fact before the High Courts and despite that High Court entertained those petitions. This is settled in law that where disputed questions of facts are involved, writ proceeding is not the appropriate remedy and in such cases the petitioner should be relegated to avail a statutory alternative remedy available under the law. In the present case there is no disputed question of fact involved. The documents filed by the petitioner or by the Ba
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
