Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 7815
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK JAIN, J
Subhash Pachori – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
WP 7013/2021
Ankur Shrivastava,Advocate General
The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to Human Resources Policy for inquiry board composition, invoking the doctrine of impossibility to allow alternative arrangements when qualified members are unavailable.
Headnote:(A) Human Resources Policy - Inquiry Board Composition - The inquiry board constituted did not comply with the Human Resources Policy as it included members not holding the required ranks. The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to the policy to ensure fairness in disciplinary proceedings. (Paras 2, 3, 8, 12, 22)
(B) Doctrine of Impossibility - The court invoked the doctrine of impossibility, stating that the law does not compel a person to perform an impossible act, allowing for alternative arrangements in the absence of qualified members. (Paras 15, 21)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner challenged the composition of an inquiry board constituted by the bank, arguing that it did not meet the rank requirements set forth in the Human Resources Policy. The court noted the absence of qualified officers to form the board. (Paras 2, 4, 12)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the inquiry board was incompetent due to the inclusion of members not meeting the required ranks and directed the formation of a compliant board. (Paras 22, 24)
Issues: The main issues included whether the inquiry board complied with the Human Resources Policy and how to address the lack of available qualified officers. (Paras 2, 12)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that strict adherence to the Human Resources Policy is essential for fairness, and in cases of impossibility, alternative arrangements can be made to ensure due process. (Paras 15, 21)
Result: The petition is disposed of with directions to constitute a compliant inquiry board.
The present petition has been filed challenging the order Annexure P-12 constituting a three member inquiry board comprising of Branch Manager, Assistant Accountant and Banking Assistant. The said inquiry board has been constituted in compliance of order dated 22.01.2020 passed by this Court in WP No.28276/2018.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the constitution of inquiry board vide Annexure P-12 on the ground that as per the Human Resources Policy of the respondents No.4 & 5-Bank, the inquiry board has to be constituted comprising of three members, one of which would be holding the rank of Manager, the second member would be holding the rank below medium management Grade I and third member should be the rank of senior management Grade II or above. It is further laid down that the Bank employees holding the rank of senior management two and medium management one respectively as noted above would be employees of the Bank.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents No.4 & 5 does not dispute the aspect that two of the members of the committee constituted vide Annexure P-12 are juniors in rank to the petitioner and do not hold the rank of senior management Grade-II and middle management Grade-1 as provided in the Human Resources Policy Annexure P-14.
4. Vide order dated 13.07.2023, this Court had noted the position that there is no officer available in the Bank holding the position of senior management grade-II and middle management grade-1, who can be inducted as the member of the Board because the petitioner himself is holding a sufficiently senior position and sufficient number of senior officers are not available with the Bank. Noting the said contention, this Court had directed on 13.07.2023 to address the Court with regard to possible alternative methods for dealing with such a situation.
5. Thereafter, the matter was listed again on 22.04.2024 on which date, this Court had directed the Registrar, Cooperative Societies to submit affidavit as to what procedure can be adopted in such case when sufficient number of senior officer is not available to form part of inquiry board. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, it is contended by the rival parties that an affidavit of the Registrar has been filed and as per said affidavit, the Registrar has passed an order dated 24.05.2024 in compliance of order passed by this Court in the present petition on 22.04.2024, wherein a three member inquiry board has been constituted by the Registrar comprising one Shri Pankaj Gupta, Cadre Officer of the Apex Bank, Shri Chandra Shekhar Patle, who is Chief Executive Officer and Shri Vinod Dahiya, Accountant, District Central Cooperative Bank, Jabalpur i.e. respondents No.4 and 5.
6. During the course of hearing, it is admitted by counsel for the rival parties that even as per this order passed by the Registrar, Cooperative Societies dated 24/05/2024, one of the officers i.e. Shri Pankaj Gupta, who is Chairman of the Inquiry Board is not an employee of respondents No.4 & 5- Bank and Shri Vinod Dahiya, who is member of the Inquiry Board is placed in the middle management grade-2 whereas the 3rd officer has to be atleast middle management grade-1 or above. The petitioner himself is in the Middle Management Grade II.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner had relied on relevant portion of the service regulations placed on record as Annexure A-1 to I.A. No.10660/2024, wherein the cadre structure of the respondents No.4 & 5-Bank has been mentioned and from perusal of the said cadre structure, it is evident that the third member of inquiry board i.e. Shri Vinod Dahiya is holding the post of middle management grade-II and not middle management grade-I.
8. Thus, as admitted by the rival parties, even the order passed by the Registrar dated 24/05/2024 does not qualify the requirement of law as per the Human Resources Policy because one of the officers is not an employee of the Bank and one of the officers is below middle management Grade
