Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 674 (PAT)

Ramdeo Singh v. Siwan Kshetriya Gramin Bank

2002-06-26

AFTAB ALAM

body2002
Judgment 1. The petitioner was an employee of the Siwan Kshetriya Gramin Bank (hereinafter referred to as the Bank). He was proceeded against in a disciplinary action on the charge of mis-appropriation of a sum of Rs. 19,000/- and causing destruction of the related documents. In the departmental enquiry the charges were found established and on the basis of the enquiry report he was dismissed from service by order, dated 11.3.97. The petitioners appeal against the order of his dismissal was rejected by the Board of Directors by order, dated 24.9.1997. He challenged the order of his dismissal and the order passed on his appeal before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 11008 of 1997. In that case this Court found that the Appellate authority had failed to pass a reasoned order dealing with the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner-appellant. This Court, therefore, set aside the order passed in appeal and remitted the matter to the Appellate authority for passing a fresh order, in accordance with law. It is to be noted that this Court at that stage did not interfere with the order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority. 2. On remand the Appellate authority reconsidered the petitioners appeal and once again rejected it by order dated 12.6.2001. 3. The petitioner is once again before this Court challenging the order of his dismissal passed by the Competent authority (copy at annexure-6) and the order dated 12.6.2001 (annexure-10) passed by the Appellate authority on remand by this Court. 4. This time the petitioner makes the departmental enquiry as the focus of its attack and Mr. S.S. Asghar Hussain learned senior counsel appearing in support of this writ petition submitted that the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner was vitiated for the following three reasons : (I) The petitioner was not given copies of the documents connected with the charges. (II) The petitioner was not allowed to be represented before the departmental enquiry by a person of his choice who was a trade union leader on the ground that he was not an employee of the Bank. (III) Even though an earlier Chairman of the Bank had directed that the disciplinary proceeding will abide by the result of the criminal trial being faced by the petitioner on the same charges, the disciplinary proceeding was allowed to continue notwithstanding the petitioners acquittal in the criminal case. 5. (III) Even though an earlier Chairman of the Bank had directed that the disciplinary proceeding will abide by the result of the criminal trial being faced by the petitioner on the same charges, the disciplinary proceeding was allowed to continue notwithstanding the petitioners acquittal in the criminal case. 5. For the sake of convenience l propose to first examine the last point urged on behalf of the petitioner and then l will take up the first two points together. 6. Mr. Hussain submitted that an earlier Chairman of the Bank had passed an order on 31.5.1990 saying that the departmental proceeding pending against the petitioner would abide by the result of the criminal trial being faced by him on the same charges. In support of this submission, he made a reference to the document at annexure-5. This indeed is a note by the Chairman of the Bank but l gather from it a slightly different intention than what is submitted by Mr. Hussain. From the note it appears that the criminal trial had been going on for a long time and in the meanwhile the petitioner was kept under suspension. He made repeated representations before the authorities in the Bank for revocation of his suspension and in that content that order was passed stating that the suspension of the petitioner will abide by the result of the criminal trial; though in the later portion of the note, the Chairman used the expression disciplinary proceeding but what he meant was the continuance of suspension and not the disciplinary proceeding. 7. Moreover, it is no longer open to the petitioner to raise this question. It appears that after his acquittal in the criminal case he had come to this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 9606 of 1996 making a grievance regarding his being kept under suspension for a long time and praying for the question of the pending departmental proceeding. That writ petition was disposed of by order dated 3.1.1997. By that order this Court did not quash the departmental proceeding but directed the concerned authorities to conclude it within six weeks from the date of the order. The relevant portion of the order is as follows : "I fail to appreciate that how a person can be kept under suspension for almost ten long years under whatsoever circumstances. By that order this Court did not quash the departmental proceeding but directed the concerned authorities to conclude it within six weeks from the date of the order. The relevant portion of the order is as follows : "I fail to appreciate that how a person can be kept under suspension for almost ten long years under whatsoever circumstances. This in fact, is against the interest of the employee as well as the employer. However, as it has been fairly submitted by Mr. Sinha, learned counsel for the Bank that some time may be fixed for conclusion of the departmental proceeding, l direct the respondents to conclude the departmental proceeding within six weeks from today. It is needless to say that the petitioner shall cooperate in the departmental proceeding and if he does not co-operate, the Bank will be at liberty to proceed exparte in accordance with law." 8. In view of the order passed by this Court it is no longer open to the petitioner to question the continuance of the proceeding after his acquittal by the criminal court. 9. Coming now to the other two objections regarding non-supply of documents and the petitioner not being allowed to be represented in the departmental enquiry by someone not an employee of the Bank, it may be noted that this Court had directed the concerned authorities to conclude the proceeding within six weeks of 3.1.1997 that being the date of the order. From the proceedings of the departmental enquiry which are at annexure-B to the counter-affidavit it appears that on 10.1.1997 the petitioner appeared before the enquiry officer. On that date the conducting officer handed over to him the charge sheet and some documents relating to the charges. The petitioners asked for some more document and the conducting officer stated before the enquiry officer that those documents will be given to the petitioner on the next date, being 16.1.1997. On 16.1.1997 the petitioner wanted to be represented by someone who was not an employee of the Bank. The enquiry-officer disallowed his request and the proceedings were adjourned to 21.1.1997. On that date the petitioner did not appear and submitted a petition for time. His prayer was allowed and the proceedings were fixed for 27.1.1997. On that date the petitioner once again sent a petition for time. The proceedings were then fixed for 30.1.1997. The enquiry-officer disallowed his request and the proceedings were adjourned to 21.1.1997. On that date the petitioner did not appear and submitted a petition for time. His prayer was allowed and the proceedings were fixed for 27.1.1997. On that date the petitioner once again sent a petition for time. The proceedings were then fixed for 30.1.1997. On that date while the enquiry officer waited for the petitioner another petition for time from the petitioner was received by registered post. The proceedings were then adjourned to 4.2.1997. Even on that date the petitioner did not turn up till 1 P.M. and then the enquiry officer proceeded with the departmental enquiry ex parte so as to conclude it within six weeks as directed by this Court. 10. In these facts and circumstances, l find no substance in the petitioners grievance regarding non-supply of the documents to him or he being disallowed to be represented by someone not an employee of the Bank. 11. On hearing counsel for the parties and on going through the pleadings, 1 find no merit in this writ petition and l am satisfied that no case is made out for any interference by this Court. The writ petition is dismissed.