Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1226 (RAJ)

UCO Bank v. S. B. Maheshwari

2003-09-01

SHASHI KANT SHARMA, Y.R.MEENA

body2003
JUDGMENT 1. - These two appeals are directed against the impugned order of 1 learned Single Judge dated October 29, 1999 whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the petitions holding that enquiry conducted by Shri 0.P Gupta was not fair. Since common question of law arises in these appeals, we dispose of both the appeals by this common judgment. 2. In 1982-83, the petitioner was posted as Manager of the Babaicha Branch. UCO Bank. A notice was issued to him why enquiry should not be hold on the charges levelled against him. Enquiry was conducted and completed, punishment was awarded and in appeal the punishment was modified. Under modified punishment order, the pay was reduced to the lowest stage in the time scale applicable to him. 3. When the enquiry was initiated, Shri O.P Gupta was appointed as Enquiry Officer against the wishes of petitioner. 4. The case of the petitioner that Shri O.P Gupta and petitioner were both office bearers of two different rival unions and the petitioner does not expect fair enquiry from Shri O.P. Gupta. In spite of that, directions was given to the petitioner to cooperate with the enquiry officer Shri O.P Gupta and Shri O.P. Gupta found the charges levelled against the petitioner are established. 5. The petitioner has challenged that enquiry and also the punishment imposed on the basis of the enquiry. In the writ petition, the learned Single Judge vide order dated 22.3.1995 set aside the punishment order. However, against that the UCO Bank filed the appeal and the appeal of the Bank was allowed, the matter was sent back to rehear the petitioner and take fresh decision and also decide the two new points raised by the petitioner before the Division Bench. 6. Again the petitioner was heard and penalties were imposed to reduce the pay in the lowest stage in the time scale applicable to him. The petitioner again filed the writ petition challenging the enquiry on the ground of unfair findings by Shri O.P. Gupta, who is biased, as he was a office bearer 16 of the rival union. 7. The learned Single Judge has considered the various decisions in what cases it can be said that there is a reasonable apprehension of bias of the officer against whom enquiry is being conducted. 7. The learned Single Judge has considered the various decisions in what cases it can be said that there is a reasonable apprehension of bias of the officer against whom enquiry is being conducted. The learned Single Judge has quoted the decision of the Privy Council in case of Vassiliadas v. Vassiliadas and another, AIR 1945 Privy Council 38 and also the decision of their lordships of the Supreme Court in case of Pratap Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1964 SC 72 . The relevant part of the decision of their Lordships reads as under:- In para 5 of the judgment, their Lordships observed as under:- "In the case before us it is common ground that it was the Chief Minister who was in-charge of the Health Department in which the appellant was employed and it was therefore the Chief Minister as the Minister in-charge of that portfolio who initiated these proceedings, though the formal orders of the ministry were issued by the Secretaries etc., of the Department in the name of Governor. For the purposes of the present controversy the functionary who took action and on whose instructions, the action was taken against the appellant was undoubtedly the Chief Minister and if that functionary was actuated by mala fides in taking that action it is clear that such action would be vitiated." 8. If the authority acted mala fidely, that action is vitiated and in consequence of that action, no punishment can be imposed. In what cases, it can be said that the proceedings are initiated with male fide for satisfying private or personal grudge of the authority. The relevant observation of their Lordships in pare 9 reads as under:- "The only question which could be considered by the Court is whether the authority vested with the power has paid attention to or taking into account circumstances, events or matters wholly extraneous to the purpose for which the power was vested, or whether the proceedings have been initiated mala fide for satisfying a private or personal grudge of the authority against the officer. If the act is in excess of the power granted or is an abuse or misuse of power, the matter is capable of interference and rectification by the Court. If the act is in excess of the power granted or is an abuse or misuse of power, the matter is capable of interference and rectification by the Court. In such an event the fact that the authority concerned denies the charge of mala fides, or asserts the absence of oblique motives or of its having taken into consideration improper or irrelevant matter does not preclude the Court from enquiring into the truth of the allegations made against the authority and affording appropriate reliefs to the party aggrieved by i such illegality or abuse of power in the event of the allegations being made out." 9. If on the facts on record, it appears that there is a ground for suspicion, that suspicion should riot be brushed aside. The relevant observations of their Lordships in para-15 reads as under:- "If in any particular case there is well-grounded suspicion not even say proof, that a tape-recording has been tampered with that would be a good ground for the Court to discount wholly its evidentiary value." 10. The facts are not in dispute that petitioner was the Vice President of the All India Federation of UCO Bank Officers while Shri 0.P Gupta was the Secretary of the All India Bank Officers' Association. Both the Unions are rivalries to each other. This allegation has not been controverted by the appellant. When the petitioner as well as enquiry officer Shri O.P Gupta holding offices of Vice President and Secretary respectively in both the rivalry unions, it can reasonably be said that the petitioner would have reasonable apprehension in his mind regarding fairness of the enquiry by Shri O.P. Gupta in his case. Not only that from the very beginning petitioner is asking for change of Shri O.P. Gupta, Enquiry Officer, but that has not been done. In such circumstances, we see no wrong in the order of learned Single Judge that petitioner had reasonable apprehension in his mind regarding fairness of the enquiry in his case by Shri O.P. Gupta. 11. In spite of that the enquiry was continued and finding was given by SI 1 O.P Gupta against the petitioner. On such enquiry and on the finding in such enquiry, the petitioner should not be punished. We see no reason to interfere in the order of learned Single Judge. 12. In the result, both the appeals stands dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******