Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1365 (MP)

BINDAPRASAD v. NARMADA MALWA GRAMIN BANK

2009-12-14

SHANTANU KEMKAR

body2009
Judgment Shantanu Kemkar,j. ( 1. ) With consent heard finally. Petitioner is working on the post of Clerk-cum- Cashier in the respondent Narmada -Malwa Gramin Bank. He was issued a notice dated 19.07.2006(Annexure P-l)to show cause as to why disciplinary proceedings be not initiated against him for the misconduct alleged against him in the said notice. The petitioner submitted his explanation vide reply dated 04.08.2006(Annexure P-2). Thereafter on 02.12.2008 a charge-sheet (Annexure P-3) was issued to him levelling charges of major misconduct against him. Aggrieved by the issuance of the charge-sheet and initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him the petitioner has filed this petition. ( 2. ) The case of the petitioner is that the impugned charge-sheet has been issued by the General Manager of the respondent Bank whereas he was not an officer designated by the Chairman in terms of Section 2 (i) of Service Regulations, 2001. According to him the Competent Authority for taking disciplinary action against him is the officer designated by the Chairman as provided in Section 2 (i) of Service Regulations 2001. He submits that the General Manager who has issued the impugned charge-sheet has not been authorized or designated by the Chairman for the same. He has also challenged the issuance of the charge-sheet on the ground of delay. According to him after 2 years of the date of issuance of the show cause notice (Annenxure P-l)the charge-sheet(Annexure P-3) has been issued, in the circumstances the charge-sheet is liable to be quashed on the ground of delay of 2/4 years. ( 3. ) The respondents have filed reply and have stated that in view of the Resolution dated 19.09.2006(Annexure R-l)passed by the Board of Directors of the respondent Bank the Controller/Regional Officer/General Manager not below Scale-4 have been empowered to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the employees. In the circumstances issuance of the impugned charge-sheet by the General Manager on the basis of resolution dated 19.09.2006(AnnexureR-l) cannot be said to be by incompetent Authority. As regards delay it has been stated that there is no inordinate delay in issuance of the impugned charge-sheet. According to the respondents in the absence of any substantial delay and prejudice to the petitioner, he cannot be allowed to say that the delay in issuance of the charge-sheet vitiates the same. ( 4. As regards delay it has been stated that there is no inordinate delay in issuance of the impugned charge-sheet. According to the respondents in the absence of any substantial delay and prejudice to the petitioner, he cannot be allowed to say that the delay in issuance of the charge-sheet vitiates the same. ( 4. ) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on close scrutiny of Resolution dated 19.09.2006(AnnexureR-l) it is revealed that the said Resolution was passed on the basis of proposal initiated by the Chairman of the respondent Bank. The proposal of the Chairman of the respondent proposing for nomination of the Officers to be designated as Competent Authority for the purposes of Section 2 (i) of the Service Regulations, 2001 has been accepted by the Board of Directors in their meeting vide Resolution (Annexure R-l)and designated the Controller/Regional Officer/General Manager not below Scale-4 as Competent Authority within the meaning of Section 2 (i) of the Service Regulations,2001. In the circumstances when the proposal was moved by the Chairman himself the petitioners contention that the General Manager who has issued the charge-sheet to him was not competent for the same as no order to that effect has been issued by the Chairman cannot be accepted. The Resolution(Annexure R-l)was passed on the basis of the proposal made by the Chairman himself and therefore there was no necessity for issuance of a separate order by the Chairman. In the circumstances the issuance of the charge-sheet by the General Manager was well within his competence and authority and as such it cannot be said that the charge-sheet has been issued by incompetent authority. ( 5. ) The next contention of the petitioner about delay in issuance of the charge sheet is also having no merit. The alleged misconduct was of the period between April, 2005 to May, 2006. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 19.07.2006.The petitioner submitted his reply on 05.08.2006. After examining the same the impugned charge-sheet has been issued on 02.12.2008. Thus, the period of two years and four months which has been taken by the respondents for issuance of the charge-sheet cannot be said to be a period which can be termed to be of inordinate delay warranting quashment of charge-sheet more particularly considering the nature of the charges levelled against the petitioner. Thus, the period of two years and four months which has been taken by the respondents for issuance of the charge-sheet cannot be said to be a period which can be termed to be of inordinate delay warranting quashment of charge-sheet more particularly considering the nature of the charges levelled against the petitioner. Moreover the petitioner has not been able to point out as to how this delay will cause prejudice to him. In the absence of any prejudice mere delay does not vitiate enquiry. See Additional Superintendent of Police Vs. T. Natarajan,1999 Supreme Court Cases (L and S)646, P.D. Agrawal Vs. State Bank of India and others (2006) 8 SCC776 and Government of Andra Pradesh and others Vs. V. Appalla Swamy (2007)14 SCC49. ( 6. ) In view of the aforesaid I am of the view that both the grounds raised by the petitioner are having no merit. Accordingly the petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. The interim order dated 12.11.2009 is vacated. No orders as to costs. Petition dismissed.