Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1712 (ALL)

B. K. KUSHWAHA v. UNION OF INDIA

2008-08-21

S.P.MEHROTRA, V.M.SAHAI

body2008
JUDGMENT By the Court.—Notice on behalf of the respondent No. 1 has been accepted by Shri K.C. Sinha, learned Additional Solicitor General of India. Notice on behalf of the respondent Nos. 2 to 8 has been accepted by Shri Vishnu Pratap, learned counsel appearing for the said respondents. 2. The petitioner is an Officer of Scale-II in the respondent-Bank. A charge-sheet dated 31.7.2000 was issued to the petitioner levelling against him nine charges. While the enquiry in respect of the said charge-sheet was going on, another charge-sheet dated 13.1.2001 was issued to him levelling six charges. After the departmental proceedings were completed, the Enquiry Reports were submitted by the Inquiry Officer with regard to the said two charge-sheets. 3. The Disciplinary Authority passed a punishment order on 30.11.2002 awarding punishment to the petitioner with regard to the first charge-sheet. The petitioner filed an Appeal against that order. 4. Similarly, the Disciplinary Authority passed a punishment order on 14.12.2002 with regard to the charges levelled in the second charge-sheet. An Appeal was also filed by the petitioner against this punishment order. 5. The Appellate Authority decided both the Appeals by separate orders dated 22.12.2003 and dated 24.12.2003, and substantial reliefs were granted to the petitioner. However, aggrieved with the orders of the Appellate Authority, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition before this Court being Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 44406 of 2004. This Court by its order dated 12.11.2004 dismissed the Writ Petition as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to file a Review Application before the Reviewing Authority. 6. The petitioner then filed a Review Application before the Reviewing Authority in both the matters. The Reviewing Authority passed a common order dated 11.1.2005, wherein it considered both the punishment orders and the orders passed in the Appeal, and came to the conclusion that the Appellate Authority had granted substantial relief to the petitioner, and, accordingly, the Reviewing Authority confirmed the reduced punishments granted by the Appellate Authority for the separate charge-sheets. The order passed by the Reviewing Authority was communicated to the petitioner on 24.1.2005. It is this order, which has been challenged by the petitioner in the present Writ Petition. 7. We have heard Shri R.K. Nigam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Vishnu Pratap, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 to 8, and perused the record. 8. It is this order, which has been challenged by the petitioner in the present Writ Petition. 7. We have heard Shri R.K. Nigam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Vishnu Pratap, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 to 8, and perused the record. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged that the punishments, which have been awarded by the Disciplinary Authority with regard to both the charge-sheets, and have been reduced by the Appellate Authority, should run concurrently and not consecutively. It was not the intention of the Appellate Authority or the Reviewing Authority that when the first punishment is over, the second punishment will start. As the orders passed by the Appellate Authority and the Reviewing Authority do not suggest that these punishments will run one after another, the inference to be drawn is that both the punishments will run concurrently. 9. If the view of the Bank that when the punishment with regard to the first charge-sheet is over, the punishment with regard to the second charge-sheet would start, then the petitioner will be seriously prejudiced and will suffer ten years instead of five years. The view taken by the respondent-Bank is shocking to our conscience. 10. It has been laid down by the Supreme Court in various decisions that the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority should not be subjected to judicial review unless the same is shocking to the conscience of the Court/Tribunal. Reference in this regard may be made to the following decisions : (1) Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank and others v. P.C. Kakkar, AIR 2003 SC 1571 (paragraphs 12,13 and 14) : (2003) 4 SCC 364 (paragraphs 12, 13 and 14). (2) V. Ramana v. A.P.S.R.T.C. and others, AIR 2005 SC 3417 (paragraphs 12,13 and 14). (3) General Secretary, South Indian Cashew Factories Workers Union v. Managing Director, Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Ltd. and others, AIR 2006 SC 2208 (paragraph 16). (4) Union of India and others v. Dwarka Prasad Tiwari, (2006) 10 SCC 388 (paragraphs 10,11,15,16 and 17). 11. As held above, the view taken by the respondent-Bank that the punishments given to the petitioner under the two orders passed by the Appellate Authority and confirmed by the Reviewing Authority would run consecutively and not concurrently, is shocking to our conscience. 11. As held above, the view taken by the respondent-Bank that the punishments given to the petitioner under the two orders passed by the Appellate Authority and confirmed by the Reviewing Authority would run consecutively and not concurrently, is shocking to our conscience. Therefore, in view of the above decisions, a direction is liable to be issued to the respondent-Bank that both the punishments to the petitioner with regard to both the charge-sheets shall run concurrently and not consecutively. After the period of five years is over, both the punishment orders will come to an end. 12. For the reasons given above, we are of the opinion that this Writ Petition deserves to be allowed, and the same is accordingly allowed. The punishment awarded to the petitioner by the Appellate Authority and confirmed by the Reviewing Authority is modified to the extent that both the punishments awarded, with regard to charge-sheet dated 31.7.2000 and with regard to charge-sheet dated 13.1.2001, shall run concurrently and after the period of five years is over, both the punishment orders will come to an end. ———