Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 492 (PAT)

Krishna Bihari Sinha v. Union of India

2014-04-23

CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH

body2014
JUDGMENT : CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, J.:–Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of Nalanda Gramin Bank (now Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank). 2. The petitioner was an officer under erstwhile Nalanda Gramin Bank. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him, which finally culminated into the punishment order dated 23.03.2000 whereby he has been dismissed from service. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order. The appeal has been dismissed by a communication dated 18.10.2005. The order dated 23.03.2000 and communication of appellate order dated 18.10.2005 are under challenge in the present writ application. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the appellate order mainly on two counts. He firstly submits that the order of the appellate authority does not disclose any application of mind as no ground taken by the petitioner in his memo of appeal has been considered. He further submits that petitioner’s appeal has also been rejected by the appellate authority on the ground of delay in filing of the appeal. He submits that the order dated 23.03.2000 was communicated to the petitioner through letter dated 16.04.2002 issued by the Senior Manager (Personnel) of the Bank, which has been brought on record as annexure-10 to this writ application. His specific stand is that there had been no communication of the order passed by the disciplinary authority prior to issuance of the said letter dated 16.04.2002. He thereafter draws my attention to Rule 31(1) of Nalanda Rural Bank Employees Service Regulation and contends that time limit of 30 days for preferring an appeal under Regulation 30(1) is to be counted from the date of service of the order appealed against. He submits, referring to the letter dated 16.04.2002, that the impugned order dated 23.03.2000 is said to have been communicated to the petitioner by the respondents through ordinary post and under certificate of posting. He submits that there is no proof of service of notice of the order dated 23.03.2000 prior to 16.04.2002. 4. I find substance in the submission made on behalf of the petitioner so far as it relates to the order passed by the appellate authority. From the impugned communication dated 18.10.2005, it appears that the appellate authority has rejected the petitioner’s appeal on consideration that earlier also some punishment was imposed upon the petitioner and the petitioner’s appeal was barred by limitation. From the impugned communication dated 18.10.2005, it appears that the appellate authority has rejected the petitioner’s appeal on consideration that earlier also some punishment was imposed upon the petitioner and the petitioner’s appeal was barred by limitation. The order, in my opinion, is cryptic, non speaking and does not disclose application of mind and, therefore, cannot be sustained. 5. Before dismissing the appeal on the ground of it being barred by limitation, the appellate authority was required to record the date of service of the order of the disciplinary authority upon the petitioner. The order of the appellate authority is bad for this reason also. Accordingly, the communication dated 18.10.2005 by which the petitioner’s appeal dated 31.05.2002 had been dismissed, as contained in annexure-1, is quashed. The matter is remanded back to the appellate authority to consider the petitioner’s memo of appeal afresh and pass a reasoned and speaking order. If the appellate authority is of the opinion that the appeal is barred by limitation, which cannot be condoned, it will have to record a finding that copy of the order of the disciplinary authority dated 23.03.2000 was actually served upon the petitioner within a reasonable time. The appellate authority will be required to consider the points raised by the petitioner in his memo of appeal with reference to the documents/ materials available in the disciplinary proceeding. If the petitioner seeks personal hearing, the appellate authority will give him such opportunity before finally deciding the appeal. The appellate authority will be required to pass an order in compliance of this order within a period of three months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. If aggrieved, the petitioner shall have the liberty to challenge the order of the disciplinary authority passed in compliance of present order before appropriate forum in accordance with law. 6. The petitioner will be at liberty to raise before the appellate authority the plea that punishment imposed upon him is disproportionate to the alleged misconduct and a lenient view is required to be taken. It is made clear that this court has not made any observation on this aspect. If the petitioner raises such point, the appellate authority will certainly advert to it and deal with the same in accordance with law. This writ application is, accordingly, allowed. ?