Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 45 (GAU)

Allahabad Bank v. Debojyoti Das

2016-01-22

MANOJIT BHUYAN, T.VAIPHEI

body2016
JUDGMENT : Manojit Bhuyan, J. Heard Mr. S.N. Sarma, learned Senior counsel representing the appellant i.e. Allahabad Bank, assisted by Mr. K.K. Bhatra and Mr. R.K. Bhatra, Advocates as well as Mr. S. Das, learned counsel representing the sole respondent/writ petitioner. 2. The primary issue essential for deciding this appeal involves the principle of law that had time and again been reiterated by the Apex Court with regard to the essential features for dispensation of justice. 3. Challenge in the appeal is to the judgment and order dated 8.5.2014 passed in WP(C) 1068/2011 as not sustainable in law on grounds that the same had been rendered without assigning reasons while allowing the writ petition. The respondent/writ petitioner, who was the Cashier-in-charge at Lakhtokia Branch of Allahabad Bank, was initially placed under suspension, followed by initiation of a Disciplinary proceeding on the following charges: "Charge Article-I While posted & functioning as Cashier-in-charge and joint key holder of the vault of the Bank's Lakhtokia Branch you acted in fraudulent manner with malafide intention in so far as you took out ten notes of Rs. 1000/- denomination and kept less cash in the vault to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) as per the cash balance book on 18.02.09. Charge Article-II While writing cash balance book you made several cuttings not only in the date referred above but also in the pas for the reasons best known to yourself. You were so reckless and negligent in your attitude that you never care to writ the cash balance book afresh as per Banking norms." 4. In pursuance of the Enquiry and report thereof, the Disciplinary Authority issued the order dated 29.1.2010 imposing penalty of compulsory retirement with superannuation benefits. On appeal, the decision of the Disciplinary Authority was upheld by the Appellate Authority on 22.7.2010. Challenging the orders dated 29.1.2010 and 22.7.2010 as well as the initiation of the disciplinary proceeding, the aforesaid WP(C) 1068/2011 was instituted. 5. Traversing the facts in issue as well as by reproducing the relevant portion of the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the learned Single Judge held that the findings of the Enquiry Officer was not done in its proper perspective. Also, the Disciplinary Authority did not consider the Enquiry Report and the replies made by the respondent/writ petitioner. 5. Traversing the facts in issue as well as by reproducing the relevant portion of the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the learned Single Judge held that the findings of the Enquiry Officer was not done in its proper perspective. Also, the Disciplinary Authority did not consider the Enquiry Report and the replies made by the respondent/writ petitioner. On these observations alone and without expressing anything on the merits of the case, the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that the matter required to be remanded back to the respondent Bank for conducting a fresh departmental Enquiry. Accordingly, the Disciplinary proceeding initiated against the petitioner as well as the impugned orders dated 29.1.2010 and 22.7.2010 were set aside and quashed with liberty to the respondent Bank to conduct a fresh enquiry against the respondent/writ petitioner, if so advised. A direction was also made that in the event a fresh enquiry is initiated, the same should be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment and order and until then the respondent/writ petitioner be reinstated in service with effect from the date of his compulsory retirement. No direction, however, was made in respect of entitlement to any back wages. 6. The findings of the Enquiry Officer, as reproduced in the judgment and order, indicates admission of guilt on the part of the respondent/writ petitioner and the findings so recorded, on the face of it, cannot be rendered otiose short of assigning reasons of disapproval. The findings of the learned Single Judge in reaching a conclusion of disagreement on the actions of the respondent Bank can be had from paragraph 12 thereof which is reproduced hereunder: "12. Against Article of charge No.2, the inquiry Officer came to the finding that the petitioner was so reckless that he did not ensure the correctness of figure and total although counting were authenticated by the CE. This Court on consideration of the charges framed against the petitioner and the finding of the inquiry Officer is of the considered opinion that the finding of the inquiry Officer was not done in its proper perspective. It also appears that the Disciplinary Authority has also not considered the inquiry report and the reply made by the petitioner. This Court on consideration of the charges framed against the petitioner and the finding of the inquiry Officer is of the considered opinion that the finding of the inquiry Officer was not done in its proper perspective. It also appears that the Disciplinary Authority has also not considered the inquiry report and the reply made by the petitioner. However, without expressing on the merits of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the matter should be remanded back to the respondents to re-conduct a fresh departmental inquiry." 7. Apparently, the findings of the learned Single Judge at paragraph 12 above do not disclose recording of reasons while allowing the writ petition and in disagreeing with the administrative actions put to challenge by the respondent/writ petitioner. 8. The law is too well settled that while exercising power of judicial review on administrative action, providing of reasons can never be dispensed with. The Apex Court has consistently taken the view that recording of reasons is an essential feature of justice, inasmuch as, reasons are the soul and heartbeats of any order/judgment. The consequence resulting from non-recording of reasons have been emphasised by the Apex Court and has also held that the said principle of recording reasons is not only applicable to administrative or executive actions, but applies with equal force and with a greater degree of precision of judicial pronouncements. The requirement of recording reasons is a facet which cannot be dispensed with and the order of the Court must reflect what weighed with the Court in granting or declining the relief claimed by a litigant. Even at the cost of repetition the Apex Court, in no uncertain terms, has held that concept of a reasoned judgment is an indispensable part of the basic rule of law and is a mandatory requirement of the procedural law. In the same breath, the Apex Court has held that the requirement of stating reasons necessarily does not mean a very detailed or lengthy order, but there should be some reasoning recorded by the Court while declining or granting relief to the petitioner. This is a requirement which is necessary in order to make a litigant aware of the judgment for which the relief is declined or allowed as well as to provide room for the higher court in assessing the correctness of the view while disposing of a matter. This is a requirement which is necessary in order to make a litigant aware of the judgment for which the relief is declined or allowed as well as to provide room for the higher court in assessing the correctness of the view while disposing of a matter. In other words, it is imperative that reasons be recorded, however short it might be. 9. In the light of the above principles and having regard to the observations and findings made in paragraph 12 of the judgment under appeal, we are unable to find the recording of reasons in allowing the writ petition or partly thereof. In our considered opinion, the non-recording of reasons had prejudicially affected the case of the appellant, as it did not conform to doing complete and effective justice between the parties. 10. In view of the above discussions, the judgment and order dated 8.5.2014 passed in WP(C) 1068/2011 warrants interference and accordingly, stands set aside. Consequently, WP(C) 1068/2011 requires to be heard afresh before the appropriate forum and to this end, Registry is directed to do the needful for placing the writ petition for fresh hearing before the appropriate Court. 11. Resultantly, this writ appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.