Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 747 (HP)

Kailash Chander Verma v. Punjab National Bank

2016-05-11

RAJIV SHARMA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral): The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner vide charge sheet dated 20.7.1998. The disciplinary proceedings led to removal of the petitioner on 16.6.2000. Petitioner assailed the order dated 16.6.2000 by filing CWP No. 428 of 2002. It was allowed on 2.9.2003. Thereafter, the inquiry report was submitted by the enquiry Officer vide Annexure P-10. Copy of the same was supplied to the petitioner on 8.4.2006. Petitioner submitted a detailed representation to the same vide Annexure P-15 on 12.5.2006. The disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement on the petitioner vide order dated 24.8.2006. Petitioner filed an appeal against the imposition of penalty of compulsory retirement. The same was rejected by the appellate authority on 20.4.2007. Fact of the matter is that the petitioner also filed review, which was dismissed by the authority concerned on 12.12.2007. 2. The Court has gone through the order, whereby the penalty of compulsory retirement has been imposed upon the petitioner on 24.8.2006. The order passed by the disciplinary authority is not reasoned and detailed. The disciplinary authority should have taken into consideration all the grounds raised by the petitioner in his representation dated 12.5.2006 against the inquiry report. Petitioner has preferred an appeal and has taken as many as 15 to 16 grounds. The disciplinary authority has not dealt with each and every ground taken in the appeal while deciding the appeal on 20.4.2007. The appellate authority has reproduced the contents of the inquiry report and the grounds taken in the representation. Thereafter, the appellate authority suddenly came to the conclusion that there was no merit in the appeal. 3. It is no more res-integra that the orders passed by the appellate authority and disciplinary authority must be reasoned and speaking. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Roop Singh Negi versus Punjab National Bank and others, (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 570 have held as under: “23. Furthermore, the order of the disciplinary authority as also the appellate authority are not supported by any reason. As the orders passed by them have severe civil consequences, appropriate reasons should have been assigned. If the enquiry officer had relied upon the confession made by the appellant, there was no reason as to why the order of discharge passed by the criminal court on the basis of selfsame evidence should not have been taken into consideration. As the orders passed by them have severe civil consequences, appropriate reasons should have been assigned. If the enquiry officer had relied upon the confession made by the appellant, there was no reason as to why the order of discharge passed by the criminal court on the basis of selfsame evidence should not have been taken into consideration. The materials brought on record pointing out the guilt are required to be proved. A decision must be arrived at on some evidence, which is legally admissible. The provisions of the Evidence Act may not be applicable in a departmental proceeding but the principles of natural justice are. As the report of the enquiry officer was based on merely ipse dixit as also surmises and conjectures, the same could not have been sustained. The inferences drawn by the enquiry officer apparently were not supported by any evidence. Suspicion, as is well known, however high may be, can under no circumstances be held to be a substitute for legal proof.” 4. In Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank versus Jagdish Sharan Varshney and others, (2009) 4 SCC 240 , their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held that the appellate authority must give reasons while affirming the order of lower authority. 5. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in G. Vallikumari versus Andhra Education Society and others, 2010 (2) SCC 497 have held that the disciplinary authority must record reasons while passing the order. Their Lordships have held as under: 19. In his order, the Chairman of the Managing Committee did refer to the allegations leveled against the appellant and representation submitted by her in the light of the findings recorded by the inquiry officer but without even adverting to the contents of her representation and giving a semblance of indication of application of mind in the context of Rule 120(1)(iv) of the Rules, he directed her removal from service. Therefore, there is no escape from the conclusion that the order of punishment was passed by the Chairman without complying with the mandate of the relevant statutory rule and the principles of natural justice. Therefore, there is no escape from the conclusion that the order of punishment was passed by the Chairman without complying with the mandate of the relevant statutory rule and the principles of natural justice. The requirement of recording reasons by every quasi judicial or even an administrative authority entrusted with the task of passing an order adversely affecting an individual and communication thereof to the affected person is one of the recognized facets of the rules of natural justice and violation thereof has the effect of vitiating the order passed by the concerned authority. (20) A careful reading of the Tribunal's order shows that though it did not find any procedural infirmity in the inquiry against the appellant, the order passed by the Chairman of the Managing Committee was nullified only on the ground of violation of Section 8(2) of the Act read with Rule 120(2) of the Rules inasmuch as permission of the Director was not obtained before removing the appellant from service. The High Court set aside the order of the Tribunal and indirectly restored the order passed by the Chairman of the Managing Committee because it was of the view that Section 8(2) is not applicable to the minority institutions. Neither the Tribunal nor the Division Bench of the High Court dealt with and decided the appellant's challenge to the findings recorded by the inquiry officer and her plea that the extreme penalty of removal from service imposed on her was not justified because she was not found guilty of any serious misconduct.” 5. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the Annexures P-11 dated 24.8.2006, P-12 dated 20.4.2007 and P-13 dated 12.12.2007 are set aside. However, it shall be open to the disciplinary authority to pass fresh orders after taking into consideration all the grounds raised by the petitioner in his representation made to the inquiry report. It is made clear that the petitioner shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits. The pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. No costs.