Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 364 (ALL)

VED PRAKASH CHAUHAN v. PRATHAMA BANK

2017-01-30

SIDDHARTHA VARMA, TARUN AGARWALA

body2017
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Siddhartha Varma, J.—On 16.11.2004, the petitioner was charge-sheeted on two counts. One, while enquiring against Sri Prem Raj Bhatnagar, the petitioner did not discharge his duties honestly and after colluding with him exonerated him. The second charge was that because of the collusive finding which the petitioner had given in favour of Sri Prem Raj Bhatnagar he had encouraged the latter to further embezzle funds from the Bank. 2. Upon the service of the charge-sheet, an enquiry commenced which culminated in a report dated 5.7.2005 and the petitioner was ultimately dismissed from service on 23.8.2005 and his appeal was also rejected by an order dated 3.4.2006. 3. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, which was confirmed by the Appellate Authority, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition. 4. The counsel for the petitioner argued : (I) The non supply of various documents prevented the petitioner from giving a definite reply to the charge-sheet and thus there was a violation of the principles of natural justice. (II) The chronology of events shows that the proceedings against the petitioner were motivated : 1. On 11.1.2002, the incident which required investigation by the petitioner had occurred. 2. On 11.8.2003, almost a year, thereafter, a complaint was made by one Sri Sabir Hussain against Prem Raj Bhatnagar. 3. On 14.8.2003, the Head Office at Moradabad had directed the petitioner to investigate into the complaint within a period of three days, implying thereby that a preliminary investigation alone was possible in the matter. 4. On 13.10.2003, the petitioner gave his report. 5. On 16.11.2004, the respondents, almost after one year and one month charge-sheeted the petitioner. 6. Thus, the above sequence of events shows that an insignificant event which had occurred in the petitioner’s service tenure was purposely used to persecute him. (III) Even a bare perusal of the charges shows that they were framed only because the respondents wanted some how to implicate the petitioner in some proceeding which could result in a major punishment upon the petitioner. (IV) If the higher authorities were not satisfied with the report of the petitioner which he had submitted in pursuance of the order dated 14.8.2003 on 13.10.2003 then they were free to further delve into the matter themselves and could have held a full fledged disciplinary enquiry against Prem Raj Bhatnagar. (IV) If the higher authorities were not satisfied with the report of the petitioner which he had submitted in pursuance of the order dated 14.8.2003 on 13.10.2003 then they were free to further delve into the matter themselves and could have held a full fledged disciplinary enquiry against Prem Raj Bhatnagar. (V) The punishing authority as also the appellate authority have recorded such findings which could not have been arrived at by any prudent person. (VI) The petitioner could at the worst be blamed for having conducted the enquiry in a slip shod manner and thus the punishment which was imposed upon him was highly unreasonable and excessive and not commensurate to the alleged guilt. (VII) The Punishing Authority had also, without any basis or evidence, concluded that there was a collusion between the petitioner and Sri Prem Raj Bhatnagar which had resulted in some sort of a financial loss to the Bank (VIII) Lastly it has been argued, that the finding regarding Prem Raj Bhatnagar becoming dishonest on account of his exoneration by the petitioner appears to be extremely far fetched. 5. In support of his submissions, the petitioner’s counsel has relied upon 1985 SC 1121, 2016 SC 2510 paragraph 19, 20, 21 and 22, 2000 SC 1401 and 2001 AWC 2712 . In reply, the counsel for the respondent Bank, Sri Sanjeev Singh has submitted that even though the petitioner participated in the enquiry proceedings, but as he had not filed any written reply to the charge-sheet an adverse inference had to be drawn against him. It was further argued that the exoneration of Sri Prem Raj Bhatnagar by the petitioner had encouraged the latter to commit further embezzlements to the tune of Rs. 24.90 lacs. 6. In the end, the learned counsel for the respondent Bank argued that the scope of judicial review in such cases is very limited and the question of reversing the findings of the Punishing Authority did not arise. In support of his arguments, he has relied upon 2005 SC 2090, 2005 SC 3272 paragraph 14 to 16 and 2014(4) ADJ 324 paragraph 27, 28 and 29. 7. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after having gone through their affidavits, we conclude that the petitioner has been wrongly punished. 8. In support of his arguments, he has relied upon 2005 SC 2090, 2005 SC 3272 paragraph 14 to 16 and 2014(4) ADJ 324 paragraph 27, 28 and 29. 7. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after having gone through their affidavits, we conclude that the petitioner has been wrongly punished. 8. We find that a complaint was lodged by one Sri Sabir Hussain on 11.8.2003 regarding an incident which had taken place on 11.1.2002 in a branch called Punjab Nagar of Tehsil Bilaspur, District Rampur. The petitioner who was the Regional Manager of Prathama Bank, Regional Office, Rampur Chhettra, was, on 14.8.2003, directed by the Head Office situate at Moradabad to conduct an enquiry regarding the complaint of Sri Sabir Hussain within three days. The petitioner embarked upon the enquiry and after completing the same, submitted his report on 13.10.2003. He had primarily depended on some statements - oral and written - and had thus concluded that the complaint of Sri Sabir Hussain had no substance. A bare perusal of the report dated 13.10.2003 establishes that the same was a preliminary, fact finding report and was not a full fledged enquiry report after a regular disciplinary enquiry. The law laid down in 2000 SC 1401 and 2001 AWC 2712 says that no action against a delinquent can be taken on the basis of a preliminary report, which would mean that a preliminary report is not a final report and is always subject to a full fledged enquiry. In the case at hand the petitioner has been tried for giving a tainted preliminary report. This could not have been done. Any disagreement with it should have been followed by a full fledged enquiry. 9. We further find that after the report dated 13.10.2003 was submitted by the petitioner nothing further happened. Nobody questioned the exoneration of Prem Raj Bhantnagar. Almost after one year and a month things were raked up and a charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner on 16.11.2004 which resulted in the impugned order of punishment. The Punishing Authority for no reason, whatsoever, has found that there was collusion between the petitioner and Sri Prem Raj Bhatnagar. Furthermore, the finding of the Punishing Authority that the exoneration of Sri Prem Raj Bhatnagar had resulted in encouraging him to grow even more corrupt, definitely appears to be extremely far fetched. 10. The Punishing Authority for no reason, whatsoever, has found that there was collusion between the petitioner and Sri Prem Raj Bhatnagar. Furthermore, the finding of the Punishing Authority that the exoneration of Sri Prem Raj Bhatnagar had resulted in encouraging him to grow even more corrupt, definitely appears to be extremely far fetched. 10. The impugned order of punishment is absolutely silent as to how the conclusion regarding collusion between the petitioner and Sri Prem Raj Bhattnagar was arrived at and how the collusion had resulted in some sort of financial loss to the Bank. The punishment, therefore, is extremely misplaced. 11. For the reasons given above we allow the Writ Petition, and quash the punishment order dated 23.8.2005 alongwith the order dated 3.4.2006 passed in appeal.