Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 461 (PAT)

Lala Rajak v. State Bank of India

2013-04-05

BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA

body2013
ORDER Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the validity and correctness of order dated 4th April 2001 (Annexure-6) passed by the General Manager (D & PB), the Appointing Authority, of the State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Patna, whereby on the basis of findings recorded by the Inquiring Authority, penalty of removal from service has been inflicted upon the petitioner under the provisions of the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules (hereinafter to be referred to as the Service Rules). The petitioner has also assailed the validity and correctness of the appellate order dated 3rd October 2002 (Annexure-8) passed by the respondent Chief General Manager of the State Bank of India (in short Bank) as also the order dated 21.02.2003 (Annexure-9), passed by the Reviewing Committee of the Bank whereby the order passed by the appellate authority has been affirmed. 3. The relevant facts are not under much dispute. While the petitioner was posted as Assistant Branch Manager at Sumerganj Branch of the respondent Bank in the district of Vaishali, he was put under suspension by order dated 18.05.1998 (Annexure-1) issued by the Deputy General Manager, Disciplinary Authority, on the ground of committing several financial irregularities of serious nature. Thereafter, in terms of Rule 68(1) (i) of the Service Rules, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. Memorandum of charge-sheet dated 16th September 1999 (Annexure-2) was served upon the petitioner enclosing therein the articles of charges, at Annexure-1, statement of allegations against the petitioner, at Annexure-II, and list of documents on which charges were based at Annexure-III. The petitioner was called upon to submit his written statement of defence in terms of Rule 68(2) (iii) of the Service Rules within fifteen days. Admittedly, the petitioner had filed his written statement of defence denying articles of charges framed against him. 4. In view of denial of charges by the petitioner, one Shri B.C. Bhowmick, Assistant General Manager (Domestic Enquiry) was appointed as Inquiring Authority under the provisions of the Service Rules. During the course of enquiry material exhibits were produced and witnesses were examined by both sides. There is no allegation that the petitioner was not allowed to participate in the disciplinary proceeding or to produce materials in support of his defence. On conclusion of the enquiry, the enquiry report was submitted on 28.09.2000. During the course of enquiry material exhibits were produced and witnesses were examined by both sides. There is no allegation that the petitioner was not allowed to participate in the disciplinary proceeding or to produce materials in support of his defence. On conclusion of the enquiry, the enquiry report was submitted on 28.09.2000. A copy of the enquiry report was forwarded to the petitioner by letter dated 03.11.2000 (Annexure- 5) asking him to file his second show cause. Finally, after considering the materials including the materials produced by the petitioner, the respondent General Manager, being the appointing authority, on the recommendation of the Disciplinary Authority passed the impugned final order dated 4th April, 2001 (Annexure-6) imposing penalty of removal from service against the petitioner and it was directed that the period of suspension shall be treated as such. 5. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of punishment dated 4th April, 2001 (Annexure-6), preferred appeal before the appellate authority under the provisions of the Service Rules, which has been disposed of by the impugned reasoned and speaking appellate order dated 3rd April, 2002 (Annexure-8) by the respondent Chief General Manager of the respondent Bank, being the appellate authority. The petitioner, not being satisfied with the impugned appellate order, preferred review application under the provisions of the Service Rules, which has also been rejected by the impugned reasoned and speaking order dated 21.02.2003 (Annexure-9) passed by the Reviewing Committee of the Bank. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the validity and correctness of the impugned orders, has raised three points; firstly that the findings recorded by the appointing authority are perverse, secondly there has been violation of rules of natural justice, and thirdly the quantum of punishment imposed upon the petitioner is disproportionate to the charges proved against the petitioner. In support of his above contentions he has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India vs. G. Ganayutham [ (1997)7 SCC 463 ], B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India [ (1995) 6 SCC 749 ] and Kailash Nath Gupta vs. Enquiry Officer, (R.K.Rai), Allahabad Bank [ (2003) 9 SCC 480 ]. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has opposed the prayer made in the present application and has supported the impugned orders passed by the appointing authority, the appellate authority, as also the reviewing authority. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has opposed the prayer made in the present application and has supported the impugned orders passed by the appointing authority, the appellate authority, as also the reviewing authority. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner was a responsible officer of the respondent Bank working on the post of Assistant Branch Manager and the articles of charges regarding financial irregularity have been found to have been proved by the Inquiring Authority on examination of materials produced by the parties. According to him, the petitioner was provided full opportunity to participate in the disciplinary proceeding and produce all the materials in support of his defence. If the petitioner failed to produce relevant materials in support of his defence, then after conclusion of the disciplinary proceeding, at this stage he cannot be permitted to raise those issues, which were not raised during the course of enquiry. It has been highlighted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the present writ petition is fit to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches also. It is contended that the Reviewing Authority passed the impugned order on 21.02.2003 (Annexure-9) and the present writ petition was filed after more than three years thereafter on 04.12.2006. Therefore, according to him, the writ petition is fit to be dismissed on that ground alone. 8. After having heard the parties and on consideration of the materials available on record, this Court does not find any legal infirmity or procedural irregularities in the orders impugned warranting any interference by this Court. This Court is of the opinion that while exercising the powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution, the High Court is not required to sit as an appellate authority for reappraisal of the materials available on the record for coming to a different conclusions than that of the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority. This Court is required to examine the correctness or otherwise of the decision making process adopted by the authorities concerned, and not the decision itself, which should be left within the domain of the disciplinary authority. This Court is required to examine the correctness or otherwise of the decision making process adopted by the authorities concerned, and not the decision itself, which should be left within the domain of the disciplinary authority. Admittedly, the petitioner has not alleged violation of any provisions of the Service Rules or that he was not allowed to participate in the disciplinary proceeding and/ or was not allowed to produce all his materials in support of his defence. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the materials available on records are reappraised, then this Court may come to a conclusion that findings recorded by the Inquiring Authority and/or the conclusions arrived at by the appointing authority were not correct. I am afraid that this is not the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court further finds that the disciplinary authority/ Appointing authority, appellate authority as also the reviewing authority all have considered all the issues raised on behalf of the petitioner and have dealt them fully and properly in their respective orders. The orders impugned cannot be said to be perverse by any standard. The petitioner, being in service of the Bank and holding a responsible post, and in view of the findings of guilt recorded by the Inquiring Officer, the quantum of punishment inflicted upon him cannot be said to be excessive or disproportionate to the guilt proved. The plea of violation of the rules of natural justice is completely misconceived. The judgments cited by the learned counsel of the petitioner shall not salvage the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the present case. For the reasons recorded above, this writ petition has to fail and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.