Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1712 (ALL)

R. P. Singh v. UCO Bank Through General Manager

2019-07-17

MANISH MATHUR

body2019
JUDGMENT : MANISH MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Sri S.P.Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Avdhesh Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties. 2. The petitioner has challenged the termination order dated 31.03.1999 and the appellate order dated 30.06.1999 upholding the order of termination. 3. As per the averments made in the Writ Petition, the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Peon with the opposite parties in the year 1980 and was subsequently promoted on the post of Clerk/Cashier in the year 1987. On 02.06.1996, the petitioner was placed under suspension and first information report was lodged against the petitioner and the Branch Manger, Sri C.J. Nagar stating that they were withdrawing money from some accounts fraudulently by way of forged signatures of the customers. The said first information report was registered as Case Crime No.408 of 1996 in which final report was submitted on 28.12.1997 and was thereafter accepted by the Court which became final. In the meantime, the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet dated 24.12.1996 bearing six charges against the petitioner to which the petitioner submitted his reply. Similarly, another charge sheet dated 14.12.1996 was served upon Sri Nagar. Separate enquiries were conducted against Sri Nagar and the petitioner which culminated in finding both the said employees guilty of the charges levelled against them. In the case of the petitioner, by means of the punishment order, the services were terminated while in the case of Sri Nagar, the punishment of compulsory retirement was imposed without any adverse effect on his service benefits. The petitioner has, therefore, challenged the order of termination as well as the appellate order on the ground of discrimination. Lacuna in the enquiry proceedings have also been challenged by the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that during pendency of the Writ Petition, the petitioner has attained the age of superannuation and, therefore, challenge to the enquiry proceedings would be a futility in view of the fact that the petitioner cannot now be reinstated in service and, therefore, he is restricting his challenge to the punishment awarded to the petitioner on the ground of discrimination with the punishment awarded to Sri Nagar, who was charge-sheeted along with petitioner with regard to the same incident. 5. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a perusal of the charge-sheets against the petitioner as well as Sri Nagar indicates that both the persons were charge-sheeted with regard to the same events and has also drawn attention to the impugned punishment order in which the disciplinary authority has recorded a finding that there is no distinguishing feature between the cases of the petitioner and Sri Nagar. As such, he submits that there was no question of awarding different punishments to both the persons. He has further submitted that in fact the petitioner earlier had claimed that his nature of duties were different from those of Sri Nagar and, therefore, the charges also levelled against him were different in nature but once the disciplinary authority himself has negatived the said argument with the specific finding that there is no distinguishing feature between the two cases, then it was incumbent upon the disciplinary authority to have awarded the same punishment to both the persons. 6. Learned counsel for the opposite parties, on the basis of the counter affidavit, has rebutted the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioner with the submission that the cases of both the persons were completely different inasmuch as not only the nature of duties but the posts as well as the charges levelled against the petitioner and Sri Nagar were completely different and there was no similarity between the two cases due to which separate punishments were imposed on both the persons. He has also submitted that even the enquiry proceedings conducted against both the persons were under different set of rules. In view of the aforesaid, learned counsel for the opposite parties has submitted that there cannot be any parity with regard to the punishment imposed upon the petitioner and Sri Nagar. Both the learned counsel have relied upon certain sets of rulings which are as follows :- Rulings relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner: (1) Sengara Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, 1983 4 SCC 225 ; (2) Naresh Chandra Gupta v. General Manager (Karmik). Both the learned counsel have relied upon certain sets of rulings which are as follows :- Rulings relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner: (1) Sengara Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, 1983 4 SCC 225 ; (2) Naresh Chandra Gupta v. General Manager (Karmik). U.P. State Roadways Transport Corporation Lucknow and others, 2010 28 LCD 212; (3) Barnam Singh v. Director, Samaj Kalyan Department, U.P. and another, 2002 1 UPLBEC 735 ; Rulings relied upon by learned counsel for the opposite parties: (1) State of Meghalaya and others v. Mecken Singh N. Marak, 2008 7 SCC 580 ; (2) Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Ltd. and another v. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri and others, 2009 15 SCC 620 ; (3) Chandra Kumar Chopra v. Union of India and others, 2012 6 SCC 369 ; (4) Maharashtra State Seeds Corp. Ltd. v. Hari Prasad Drupadrao Jadhao and another, 2006 3 SCC 690; (5) State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena, 1996 6 SCC 417 ; (6) Lalit Popli v. Canara Bank, 2003 3 SCC 583 ; (7) Balbir Chand v. Food Corporation of India Ltd. and others, 1997 3 SCC 371 ; (8) State of Haryana v. Ram Kumar Mann, 1997 3 SCC 321 . 7. I have considered the rival submissions and have perused the record and the rulings submitted by the parties concerned. 8. In view of the fact that learned counsel for the petitioner is not challenging the enquiry proceedings due to the petitioner having reached the age of superannuation, the only aspect required to be considered as of now is with regard to the parity or discrimination in the award of punishment to the petitioner and Sri Nagar. A perusal of the charge-sheets issued to the petitioner and to Sri Nagar clearly indicate that the charges levelled against both the persons are completely different in nature. While the petitioner has been charged with the act of committing forgery in the cheques of the account holders, Sri Nagar has been charged for having passed the cash payment against the withdrawal on the basis of the forgeries said to have been committed by the petitioner. It is also not in dispute that the posts held by the petitioner and Sri Nagar were completely different due to which the nature of their duties were also completely different. It is also not in dispute that the posts held by the petitioner and Sri Nagar were completely different due to which the nature of their duties were also completely different. Therefore, it is clearly borne out from the charge-sheets that there was no parity between the two, with regard to the charges levelled against them. 9. It is a relevant factor that the petitioner himself had taken the ground that his case was completely different from that of Sri Nagar. However, the said consideration has been negatived by the disciplinary authority himself in the punishment order dated 31.03.1999 in which he has stated that he has come to the conclusion that 'distinguishing the acts of the petitioner from the acts of Sri Nagar is nowhere less and keep the petitioner apart from the total acts of embezzlement of Bank's funds and fraud committed because neither Sri Nagar alone could have committed the fraud of this nature nor alone the petitioner could have been able to commit this nature of fraud and it is, therefore, an unholy alliance which united them'. The said finding has been upheld by the appellate authority also. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has laid much emphasis upon the said paragraph of the punishment order to indicate the fact that the cases of the petitioner as well as of Sri Nagar were similar in nature since the very plea of the petitioner himself of distinguishing feature has been negatived. However, a perusal of the aforesaid statement in the punishment order does not at all indicate that the cases of the petitioner and Sri Nagar were similar. It only indicates an alliance between the petitioner and Sri Nagar as well as the fact that one person could not have committed such a fraud without the active collusion of the other person. The said finding does not at all indicate the similarity in the nature of charges against the petitioner and Sri Nagar. 11. The posts held by the petitioner and Sri Nagar are admittedly quite different and would, therefore, necessarily entail difference in the duties performed by both the persons. Such a fact clearly cannot be said to grant any similarity between the petitioner and Sri Nagar. 11. The posts held by the petitioner and Sri Nagar are admittedly quite different and would, therefore, necessarily entail difference in the duties performed by both the persons. Such a fact clearly cannot be said to grant any similarity between the petitioner and Sri Nagar. In view of the aforesaid, it cannot be said that the case of the petitioner is similar to that of Sri Nagar and that there was any similarity between the two which would entail the grant of similar punishment to the petitioner as of Sri Nagar. 12. The decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, from a bare perusal itself, indicate that the same have been rendered in the circumstances that the persons, against whom similarity was being sought were charge-sheeted for the same grounds and for similar misconduct, which is not applicable in the present case. 13. Even in Sengara Singh and others(supra), 1100 persons were found to be guilty of the same misconduct, i.e. indiscipline for having participated in a mob procession. In Naresh Chandra Gupta(supra) also the persons involved were equally charged with misconduct and shortage of money and both had occupied the same post. Similar is the situation in Barnam Singh (supra)wherein also the nature and duties of both the persons concerned was the same. 14. In view of the aforesaid, the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner would have no application in the present case. 15. Sri Avdhesh Shukla, learned counsel for the opposite parties has also relied upon various Judgments pertaining to the limited jurisdiction of this Court with regard to review of punishment orders. 16. In State of Meghalaya and others v. Mecken Singh N. Marak (supra), Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held that in the matter of imposition of sentence, the scope for interference is very limited and is restricted to exceptional cases, which cannot be exercised without sufficient reasons. It has been further held that the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority unless shocking to the conscience of the Court cannot be subjected to judicial review. 17. It has been further held that the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority unless shocking to the conscience of the Court cannot be subjected to judicial review. 17. In Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Ltd. v. Mukul Kumar Chaudhari(supra), Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held that the power of judicial review is not directed against decision but is confined to decision-making process and it is not open for the High Court to examine findings recorded as a court of appeal to reach its own conclusions. The said judgment has been followed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Chandra Kumar Chopra (supra). 18. In Maharashtra State Seeds Corp. Ltd v. Hari Prasad Drupadrao Jadhao and another(supra), Hon'ble the Supreme Court has restricted the power of the High Court to interfere with the quantum of punishment in the cases of office of trust being held by the petitioners. 19. In State of Rajasthan v. B.K. Meena(supra), Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held that the approach and the objective in the criminal proceedings and disciplinary proceedings are altogether distinct and different as are the standard of proof, the mode of enquiry and the rules governing the enquiry and trial which are also entirely distinct and different and would, therefore, cover the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that the criminal proceedings against the petitioner had culminated in the fling of the final report. The same is the view reiterated by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Lalit Popli(supra) in which it has been further held that the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is circumscribed by the limits of judicial review to correct the errors of law or errors of procedure relating to manifest injustice or violation of principles of natural justice and does not require the High Court to act as an appellate authority. 20. In Balbir Chand(supra), Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held that there cannot be any negative equality and merely because one of the officers was wrongly given the lesser punishment compared to others, it cannot be held that they too should also be given the lesser punishment, lest the same mistaken view would be repeated. The same view has been expressed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Ram Kumar Mann(supra). 21. The same view has been expressed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in State of Haryana v. Ram Kumar Mann(supra). 21. A reading of all the aforesaid judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the opposite parties make it clear that the same are squarely applicable in the present circumstance of the case, particularly, in view of the fact that not only the charges but even the posts and nature of duties of the petitioner and Sri Nagar were completely different and, therefore, there was no scope of any similarity between the two persons. 22. In view of the aforesaid, the Writ Petition, being devoid of merits, is hereby dismissed.