Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 928 (KAR)

Syndicate Bank v. R. Bali Reddy

2014-10-28

K.L.MANJUNATH, RAVI MALIMATH

body2014
Judgment : 1. Aggrieved by the order dated 30.12.2010, passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P No.18586/2002, allowing the writ petition and quashing the impugned orders, the respondent-bank therein has filed the present appeal. 2. The writ petitioner joined the service of the bank on 04.02.1985 in the cadre Junior Management Grade Scale-I. While he was working as an Assistant Manager at Cudappa Branch, a show-cause notice was issued to him on allegations of misconduct. He submitted his reply denying the same. A charge-sheet was issued. He replied to the same. An Inquiry Officer was appointed to conduct an enquiry. The Inquiry Officer submitted a report holding him guilty of the charges. A second show-cause notice was issued. The writ petitioner replied to the same, which was not accepted and he was imposed with a penalty of dismissal from service. Aggrieved by the same, he filed an appeal which was dismissed. 4. Hence, he filed the instant writ petition seeking to quash the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, as well as the order passed by the Appellate Authority and to direct the respondent-bank to reinstate him into service with all consequential benefits. 5. On contest, the learned Single Judge by the impugned order allowed the writ petition and quashed the impugned orders. It was also directed that the petitioner was entitled for a cost of Rs.10,000/- from the respondent-bank. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent-bank has filed this appeal. 6. Shri.Abilash Raju, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-bank contends that the learned Single Judge committed an error in holding that the bank did not consider the contentions raised by the employee. That there is an error committed by the bank in arriving at a decision, without appreciating the material on record. The arbitrary decision arrived, at which were incorporated in the reasoned orders drawn later, was not justified. Therefore, he pleads that the order passed by the learned Single Judge be set-aside. 7. In support of his contention, he relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India and Others vs. S.N. Goyal, reported in AIR 2008 SC 2594 , with reference to para-19, to contend that when a quasi-judicial authority passes an order and the same is noted in the office file, nothing prevents the authority from correcting it or altering it later for valid reasons. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Appellate Authority became funtus officio when it signs the note. Therefore, even though the order passed by the Appellate Authority is on a subsequent date than the date on which the appeal was dismissed, the same cannot be held against the bank. That this is a normal procedure adopted by this bank and hence it cannot be faulted. 8. On the other hand, Shri.M.Nagaprasanna, learned counsel for the respondent defends the impugned order. He contends that the learned Single Judge has rightly appreciated the material on record. That the entire records were gone into by the learned Single Judge before setting aside the impugned orders. That glaring errors were noticed by the learned Single Judge and that the learned Single Judge has rightly held that rejecting an appeal and thereafter writing a detailed judgment on the decision arrived at, is opposed to law and that such an order is unsustainable. That the judgment relied upon by the appellants are not applicable to the case hand. Hence, he pleads that the appeal to be dismissed by confirming the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 9. Heard learned counsels. 10. The learned Single Judge while considering the contentions as well as the material on record noted that on 30.08.2001, the Inquiring Authority examined the writ petitioner. That four questions had been asked which were not in conformity with Rule-6(17) of the Syndicate Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976. That the incriminating circumstances against the writ petitioner were not disclosed. Therefore, there is an omission and a material irregularity on the part of the Inquiry Officer, which has resulted in prejudice to the employee. 11. That the authors of MEX-45 and MEX-46 i.e., one D.Subbaramaiah and Smt.Poluri Nagamma were not examined. That both of them were cited as material witnesses. Reliance is placed on MEX-45 and MEX-46, which are the statements of the said persons. That MEX-45 and MEX-46 have not been proved. That failure to examine the said persons would be fatal to the case of the bank. The Disciplinary Authority enclosed a copy of the enquiry report and directed the petitioner to submit a representation to the same. A detailed reply, charge-wise, was submitted by contending that the enquiry is in violation of the regulations and the principles of natural justice and the charges leveled against were not proved. 12. The Disciplinary Authority enclosed a copy of the enquiry report and directed the petitioner to submit a representation to the same. A detailed reply, charge-wise, was submitted by contending that the enquiry is in violation of the regulations and the principles of natural justice and the charges leveled against were not proved. 12. The learned Single Judge examined the file and the note sent by the Deputy General Manager and the General Manger to the effect that a 'stiff major penalty is warranted'. The suggestion of the Chief Vigilance Officer was in concurrence with the views expressed with regard to awarding of stiff major penalty. Thereafter, the Assistant General Manager imposed a penalty of dismissal from service considering the gravity of the misconduct. The employee submitted an appeal before the Appellate Authority. The record discloses that an office note was prepared on 08.02.2001 and was placed before the General Manager. The General Manager has recorded as follows: "Appeal rejected. I conform the penalty awarded by D.A." Sd/- 28.01.2002" 13. The learned Single Judge has expressed his shock in noting the fact that the file contained a draft order seeking approval on 29.01.2002 by the Chief Officer, which contains initials of other officers also. The date and month of the order has been left blank and insertion by hand has been made. As against the unreasoned decision rejecting the appeal on 28.01.2002, an order was prepared later by the Appellate Authority on 31.01.2002, which was communicated to the petitioner. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was of the view that when the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority were exercising their quasi-judicial powers and that too in a matter of imposing punishment, they have a duty to act judicially. That the orders to be passed required to be passed in a judicious manner and they are to consider the objections raised, record reasons and thereafter give a final conclusion. However, a decision has been taken to dismiss the appeal and later on a detailed order has been passed by considering the contentions. That the orders to be passed required to be passed in a judicious manner and they are to consider the objections raised, record reasons and thereafter give a final conclusion. However, a decision has been taken to dismiss the appeal and later on a detailed order has been passed by considering the contentions. By placing reliance on the judgment in the case of S..N..Mukherjee vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1990 SC 1984 and the judgment in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and Another vs. Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi And Others, reported in AIR 1978 SC 851 , the learned Single Judge held that the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority are unsustainable in Law. 14. We have reconsidered the contentions in the backdrop of the orders passed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has indeed taken great pains to go through the entire records in a judicious manner. Substantial and adequate opportunities were granted to both the parties to explain the record. The learned Single Judge found that the appeal has been rejected on 28.01.2002 without even considering any of the contentions raised by the employee. That based on the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Appellate Authority was duty bound to consider the objections of the employee which they have failed to do. 15. Considering the objections is not just a mere formality. It impeaches upon the legal right of the employee. When objections are not considered and the appeal is dismissed by a single word, the same is unsustainable. What is even more glaring is the fact that after the rejection of the appeal, a detailed order is sought to be prepared dated 31.01.2002, in order to justify the order of dismissal that was earlier passed. We have no hesitation to hold that the order of the learned Single Judge in setting-aside the impugned orders does not suffer from any infirmity. The reasoning assigned by the learned Single Judge emanates from the original records themselves. It does not require any further arguments to hold that no order can be sustained without any reasons. When the reasons are subsequently incorporated, the same does not satisfy the minimum requirements of law. 16. The reasoning assigned by the learned Single Judge emanates from the original records themselves. It does not require any further arguments to hold that no order can be sustained without any reasons. When the reasons are subsequently incorporated, the same does not satisfy the minimum requirements of law. 16. Reliance placed by the appellant on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of State Bank of India and Others vs. S.N. Goyal's case is wholly misplaced. Para-19 of the judgment reads as follows: "19.........Therefore, a Judge becomes functus officio when he pronounces, signs and dates the judgment (Subject to Section 152 and power of review). The position is different with reference to quasi judicial authorities. While some quasi-judicial tribunals fix a day for pronouncement and pronounce their orders on the day fixed, many quasi-judicial authorities do not pronounce their orders. Some publish or notify their orders. Some prepare and sign the orders and communicate the same to the party concerned. A quasi judicial authority will become functus officio only when its order is pronounced, or published/notified or communicated (put in the course of transmission) to the party concerned. When an order is made in an office noting in a file but is not pronounced, published or communicated, nothing prevents the Authority from correcting it or altering it for valid reasons. But once the order is pronounced or published or notified or communicated, the Authority will become functus officio. The order dated 18.1.1995 made on an office note, was neither pronounced, nor published/notified nor communicated. Therefore, it cannot be said that the Appointing Authority became functus officio when he signed the note dated 18.1.1995." 17. Therefore, it is contended that even though the appeal was dismissed on 28.01.2002, there was no bar for the authority to give reasons for its order. We are unable to accept such a contention, as such a contention offends the very fundamentals of law. The fact is not that the judgment was delivered on the same date and was thereafter corrected. The question of correction or alteration is not an issue involved herein at all. The facts would show that the appeal was rejected on 28.01.2002 which did not contain any order or judgment. On a subsequent date namely, 31.01.2002 a detailed order is passed confirming the penalty of dismissal from service. It is this that is opposed to law. The question of correction or alteration is not an issue involved herein at all. The facts would show that the appeal was rejected on 28.01.2002 which did not contain any order or judgment. On a subsequent date namely, 31.01.2002 a detailed order is passed confirming the penalty of dismissal from service. It is this that is opposed to law. If the judgment had been delivered and the operative portion alone was pronounced on 28.01.2002, the contention of the bank could have been accepted. But that is not the case nor is it so pleaded. What is sought to be addressed is that the order dated 31.01.2002 is an order that has been passed by giving reasons to the order dated 28.01.2002. We are unable to accept such a contention. In fact, that is not the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court is State Bank of India and Others vs. S.N. Goyal case. The aforesaid observation of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 19 is with regard to quasi-judicial authorities. It is to the effect that a quasi- judicial authority becomes funtus-officio only when its order is pronounced or published / notified or communicated to the party concerned. That when an order is made in an office noting in a file but is not pronounced, published, or communicated, nothing prevents the authority from correcting it or altering it for valid reasons. As such, in the case on hand there is no order dated 28.01.2002 for correction. The appeal has been dismissed without any reasons whatsoever. It is a single word order. Only subsequently a detailed order is passed. Therefore, we fail to understand as to how the learned counsel for the appellant submits that is to his benefit. 18. It is only on considering the contentions, the material evidence, the objections etc. that a judgment can be delivered. The judgment is a result of the consideration of all these factors. In the absence of these vital ingredients, it cannot be said that a judgment is sustainable. The appeal has been dismissed without considering any of the objections of the employee. Substituting it for an order thereafter, is impermissible. 19. We specifically asked the learned counsel whether this is the procedure the bank adopts or whether it is an aberration. He reiterates that this is not an aberration but this is the manner in which all appeals are considered. Substituting it for an order thereafter, is impermissible. 19. We specifically asked the learned counsel whether this is the procedure the bank adopts or whether it is an aberration. He reiterates that this is not an aberration but this is the manner in which all appeals are considered. It is needless to state that such a procedure adopted by the appellant-bank is opposed to law. This is not the manner in which an appeal is to be considered as it offends the basic fundamentals of law. This procedure of the bank mocks the statutory right of the employee. We are extremely disturbed that the bank chooses to reiterate that this is the manner in which the appeals are considered. We only hope and expect that appeals atleast from now onwards, would be considered in a manner known to law. 20. Under these facts and circumstances, we have no hesitation to hold that the learned Single Judge was absolutely justified in passing the impugned order. The impugned order is passed on the facts as well as on considering the entire records of the case. We find absolutely no reason to interfere with the well- considered and exhaustive order of the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge was right on facts and in law in passing the impugned order. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed.