Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 74 (MP)

J. C. Gupta v. Rajgarh

2019-01-22

S.C.SHARMA

body2019
JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner before this Court has filed present petition being aggrieved by order of punishment dated 27-4-2004 by which the disciplinary authority has dismissed the petitioner from services after holding Departmental Enquiry. The petitioner is also against the order dated 4-9-2004 by which the appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed. 2. The facts of the case reveal that the petitioner was appointed as an employee of Rajgarh – Sehore Kshetriya Gramin Bank on 2-4-1984 and was posted as Assistant Clerk at Branch Office at Jirapur. Two charge sheets were issued to the petitioner, first on 7-11-2002 (Annex.-P/3) and second on 11-9-2003 (Annex.-P/4) and serious charges relating to defalcation, misappropriation of funds, fraud, manipulation of account books, etc were levelled against the petitioner. 3. The petitioner did submitted a reply to the charges levelled against him and thereafter, an Enquiry Officer was appointed in the matter. The Enquiry Officer submitted their report in respect of both the Departmental Enquiry after following the prescribed procedure as contained under the Rajgarh–Sehore Regional Rural Bank (Officer and Employees) Rules and Regulations, 2001 and thereafter, the disciplinary authority has passed the impugned orders. The petitioner has been dismissed from service and his appeal has also been rejected. 4. The first ground raised by the petitioner is that in case of termination of the respondents should have heard the petitioner and as no opportunity of hearing has been granted to the petitioner, the order is bad in law. It has also been stated that the order passed by the appellate authority is also bad in law and two punishment orders could not have been passed in the manner and method it has been done. The petitioner has gone to the extent in challenging the authority of the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority passing the impugned orders. 5. A reply has been filed in the matter and the respondents have stated that there were very serious charges relating defalcation, misappropriation, fraud, manipulation of account books, etc. and a detailed and exhaustive charge sheet was served to the petitioner. The petitioner was given a liberty to file reply and thereafter, the respondents have appointed Enquiry Officer in the matter. 6. and a detailed and exhaustive charge sheet was served to the petitioner. The petitioner was given a liberty to file reply and thereafter, the respondents have appointed Enquiry Officer in the matter. 6. It has been further stated that the petitioner was given all the documents relating to Departmental Enquiry and the petitioner, has participated in the inquiry, hence, the question of denial of opportunity to the petitioner as stated in the writ petition, does not arise. The respondent has also placed reliance upon Service Regulations, 2001 and their contention is that as per the Regulations, the order has rightly been passed by the disciplinary authority. 7. This Court has carefully gone through the writ petition as well as the reply filed by the respondent. Undisputedly, the charge sheets dated 7-11-2002 and 11-9-2003 were issued to the petitioner and certainly the charges levelled against the petitioner are very serious charges. A banker who is custodian of the deposits of the customers was engaged in the act of defalcation, misappropriation, fraud, manipulation of account books, etc. It is not a case where the Bank without hearing the petitioner or without conducting the Departmental Enquiry, has punished the petitioner. 8. The charges of misappropriation have been proved by documentary evidence and the disciplinary authority after hearing the petitioner has inflicted a punishment by an order dated 27-4-2004. In the other Departmental Enquiry a punishment of reduction of pay to lower stage for a period of two years has been inflicted upon the petitioner. The respondent keeping in view Clause 38-II(b) of the Service Regulations has passed the impugned order. The disciplinary authority and the appellate authority finds place in the Service Regulations and the orders have been passed by the competent disciplinary authority as well as by the appellate authority. The punishment orders are speaking orders and the inquiry report, which is on record, establishes the charges levelled against the petitioner. 9. The Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra vs. Madhukar Narayan, reported in (1991) 1 SCC 57 and this Court in the case of Viresh Tiwari vs. Union of India, reported in 2005 (4) M.P.L.J. 280 has held that re-appreciation of evidence is not permissible by the High Court or by the other authorities in the matter of Departmental Enquiry. Interference can be done only in case the findings arrived at are perverse findings or principles of natural justice and fair play have not been followed. In the present case, the findings arrived at by the Enquiry Officer establishes the charges of misappropriation, which is a very serious charge and the principles of natural justice and fair play have been followed by the authorities while conducting the Departmental Enquiry. Not only this, by no stretch of imagination and keeping in view the nature of the charges, it can not be said that punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the guilt of the employee. 10. In the case of Chairman and Managing Director, UCO Bank vs. P. C. Kakkar, reported in (2003) 4 SCC 364 , the Apex Court was again dealing with the case of banker and in light of the aforesaid judgment, the petitioner was required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity and to take all possible steps to protect the interest of the Bank. The conduct of the petitioner has invited a punishment of dismissal, which is permissible under the Regulations of 2001. 11. Not only this, the petitioner is facing a criminal case i.e. Case No. 222/02 for charges under sections 457, 380, 201, 477, 477-B, 409, 420 and 467 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. At the time the return was filed the case was pending, however, this Court is of the opinion that even if the petitioner is acquitted in the criminal case, the question of setting aside the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority does not arise. 12. In the criminal case, crime has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and in the Departmental Enquiry, the theory of preponderance of probability is applicable and once the charges have been proved in the Departmental Enquiry, this Court is of the opinion that no case for interference is made out in the matter. Not only this, the order passed by the disciplinary authority and the order passed by the appellate authority are speaking order and no case for interference is made out in the matter. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Certified copy as per rules. Petition dismissed.