Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 371 (MP)

Subhash Chandra Mukherjee v. Chairman

2011-03-22

R.S.JHA, S.R.ALAM

body2011
ORDER S.R. Alam, C. J. 1. This intra-court appeal under section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 arises out of the order dated 10.12.2009 passed by the learned single judge in W. P. No. 653/99 dismissing the petition filed by the appellant against the order of compulsory retirement in the regular departmental proceedings. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the disciplinary authority in fact acted in predetermined manner inasmuch as in the order asking the petitioner to show cause dated 2nd of January, 1998 contained in Annexure P/2 he had already expressed his opinion. It is further contended that the documents sought for, were not provided to the appellant on account of which great prejudice was caused to the appellant in defending himself. 3. While elaborating the first submission, the learned counsel for the appellant drew our attention to the last sentence of para 2 of the order dated 2.1.1998 of the disciplinary authority wherein he has stated as under:- I am also in agreement with the findings of Enquiry Authority. 4. It is submitted that the disciplinary authority before going through the defence and the show cause had made up his mind to accept the enquiry report. He further submitted that the appellant sought several documents mentioned in Annexure P/9, out of which only 9 documents were supplied. On a query-being asked as to what prejudice has been caused to the petitioner/ appellant, he referred to the Bank's instructions nos. 35, 36 and 37 copies of which, it is alleged, were not given to the petitioner in spite of repeated requests. 5. We are not impressed by the submissions of the appellant's counsel for the reason that apparently the observation of the Disciplinary authority that he is in agreement with the findings of the Enquiry Authority, was not a final opinion expressed by him but only indicated that he was prima facie, satisfied with the report and therefore, called upon the appellant to show cause. Thus, the observation of the respondents cannot be held to be a final opinion and it was always open to the disciplinary authority to change his view after going through the show cause filed by the appellant. We do not find any merits in this submission. 6. Thus, the observation of the respondents cannot be held to be a final opinion and it was always open to the disciplinary authority to change his view after going through the show cause filed by the appellant. We do not find any merits in this submission. 6. Coming to the second submission i.e. with regard to the non-supply of the documents, the instructions which are mentioned in item nos. 35, 36 and 37 are the instructions issued by the Bank for the purpose of disbursement of the loan. 7. From a perusal of the charge sheet it would be apparent that the allegations against the petitioner pertain to not following the instructions of the Zonal Office in the matter of granting loan, evaluating documents for grant of loan and taking equitable mortgage or guarantee for the loan sanctioned which were all well within the knowledge of the petitioner and he was required to follow those instructions and therefore, non-supply of copy of those instructions in our view cannot be held to have caused any prejudice in defending his case which is in fact evident from a perusal of the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer wherein he has mentioned that the appellant has cross examined the witnesses in respect of those instructions and this fact is not denied by the appellant. In view of the above, it is clearly established that the non-supply of the documents has not caused any prejudice to the appellant. 8. No other point is urged. 9. It is a settled law that this Court does not sit as an Appellate Authority in disciplinary proceedings and is not required to re-appreciate the evidence and its interference in the same is limited to cases of no evidence, perversity or Wednes bury unreasonableness as has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of Yoginath D. Bagde Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, (1999) 7 SCC 739 . 10. We, therefore, do not find any merits in the appeal. The same is accordingly dismissed.