Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 1007 (PAT)

Vinod Shankar Singh v. Central Bank Of India

2000-08-17

R.M.PRASAD

body2000
Judgment R.M.Prasad, J. 1. In this writ petition, petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated June 24, 1995 (Annexure-13) passed by the appellate authority, whereby he has been inflicted punishment of stoppage of seven increments with cumulative effect and also for quashing the order of the reviewing authority (Annexure-16) rejecting his review appeal besides the earlier order of the disciplinary authority dated October 21, 1994 contained in Annexure-10 awarding punishment of Discharge from service witn immediate effect. 2. It appears that the petitioner had moved earlier also with same grievance in CWJC No. 8390 of 1995 which after some arguments on the prayer of learned counsel for the petitioner was permitted to be withdrawn vide order dated January 6, 1997 (Annexurc-15) on the submission made by him that it is a matter which should be taken before the authority for review of the punishment imposed upon the petitioner, as according to him punishment was too harsh keeping in view the charges against the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner filed his review application, which has been disposed of vide order dated January 24, 1998 (Annexure-16). 3. Mr. Jha, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has ventured to submit that the enquiry against the petitioner was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice and fair play inasmuch as the petitioner has not been afforded adequate opportunity to defend himself. It was also submitted that keeping in view the nature of guilt against the petitioner, the quantum of punishment awarded is excessive and not commensurate with the gravity of charge. 4. Mr. Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank submitted that there is no substance in the first submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, petitioner was given full opportunity in the departmental enquiry which was conducted in a fair and proper manner. The enquiry officer evaluated the facts emerging out of the enquiry proceeding and found charges against the petitioner proved by giving sufficient reason. Moreover, according to Mr. The enquiry officer evaluated the facts emerging out of the enquiry proceeding and found charges against the petitioner proved by giving sufficient reason. Moreover, according to Mr. Sinha, it is not now open to the petitioner to assail the validity of the order of punishment on merit as he withdrew the writ petition filed earlier to move the reviewing authority for limited purpose i.e. for review of the punishment imposed on him which according to him is too harsh keeping in view the charges against the petitioner and this Court permitted him to withdraw the writ petition accordingly to move the appropriate, authority vide order contained in Annexure-15. As such, there is no question of now assailing the order of punishment on merit. Moreover, the impugned order does not warrant any interference in view of the fact that the. reviewing authority has considered all aspects and found that the punishment awarded is commensurate to the lapses committed by the petitioner and it is just and proper and does not warrant any change. It is submitted that the Supreme Court in the case of Apparel Export Promotion Council V/s. A.K. Chopra, AIR 1999 SC 625 : 1999 (1) SCC 759 : 1999-I-LLJ-962, has he],d that it is solely within the jurisdiction of the competent authority to decide about the quantum of punishment and that it is outside the purview of High Courts interference. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh V/s. Nand Kishore Shukla AIR 1996 SC 1561 : 1996 93) SCC 750 : 1996-II-LLJ-672; N. Raja Rathinam V/s. State of Tamil Nadu and Anr., 1996 (10) SCC 371 : 1997-I-LLJ-224, B.C. Chaturvedi V/s. Union of India, AIR 1996 SC 484 : 1995(6) SCC 749 : 1996-I-LLJ-1231, Apparel Export Promotion Council V/s. A.K. Chopra, (supra) in the facts and circumstances of the present case has submitted that this Court may consider to remit the matter back to the competent authority for reconsideration on the quantum of the punishment. 6. This Court is unable to accept the said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. This Court is unable to accept the said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Earlier, this Court vide order contained in Annexure-15 permitted to the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition to move the reviewing authority for review of punishment imposed as it was submitted that the punishment was too harsh keeping in view the charges against the petitioner. The authority has reconsidered the matter vide impugned order, contained in Annexure-16 in detail on the question of quantum of punishment and after examining the materials on record and considering the serious nature of misconduct committed by the petitioner found that the punishment of stoppage of 7 increments with cumulative effect is commensurate to the lapses committed by the appellant. 7. The Apex Court in the case of Apparel Export Promotion Council A.K. Chopra (supra), held that what punishment was to be imposed was solely within the jurisdiction of the competent authority and outside the purview of the High Courts interference. It is true that the Apex Court in the case of B. C. Chaturvedi V/s. Union of India (supra), referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner, has held that where the punishment is shocking to conscience of High Court/Tribunal, it can direct authority to reconsider punishment but having regard to the reasons assigned in the impugned order, the correctness of which has not even been disputed, this Court does not find any valid reasons to hold that the punishment imposed is excessive and not commensurate with the gravity of charge. 8. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that from the facts mentioned in the impugned order, it would appear that the reviewing authority has also considered the matter on merit. As such this Court can g;o into the question of validity of the proceeding itself. In this regard he referred to the following sentences from the impugned order: "After a careful evaluation of the contentions of the appellant in his review appeal vis-a-vis the facts emerging out from the available records the undersigned finds that the Enquiry Officers findings and Disciplinary Authoritys findings and final orders are based on exhibits and evidences produced during the course of enquiry and due considerations thereof were given before arriving at the conclusion." 9. This Court finds it difficult to accept the said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. This Court finds it difficult to accept the said submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The reviewing authority have simply taken care to evaluate the contention of the petitioner vis-a-vis the facts emerging out from the available records, and in order to test as to whether the quantum of punishment awarded needs interference and found that the findings and final order are based on evidence and exhibits in the enquiry and due considerations thereof were given before arriving at the conclusion. This has been done by the Disciplinary Authority in order to test the rationale advocated by the petitioner to treat the charges of minor misconduct instead of major misconduct and not that he has considered them on merit for the purpose of review of the whole order. Moreover, in view of the stand taken on behalf of the petitioner in the earlier writ petition and the order permitting him to withdraw the writ petition for moving the authority for review of punishment imposed upon him vide Annexure-15 does not leave any scope for consideration of his case on merit either by the reviewing authority or by this Court except with respect to the quantum of punishment. 10. Accordingly, this Court does not find any merit in the writ application and the same is thus summarily dismissed.