Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2020 DIGILAW 878 (JHR)

Manoj Kumar Jha v. Vananchal Gramin Bank, Dumka

2020-09-11

DEEPAK ROSHAN

body2020
JUDGMENT : DEEPAK ROSHAN, J. 1. Heard through video conferencing. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the respondent Bank submit that the respondent Nos. 1 i.e. Vananchal Gramin Bank has been merged to Jharkhand Rajya Gramin Bank having its head office at Ranchi. 3. In view of the specific statement made at Bar by the learned counsel for the Respondent Bank, let “Jharkhand Rajya Gramin Bank” be impleaded as party respondent No. 5. Looking to the present situation due to COVID-19 the registry is directed to implead “Jharkhand Rajya Gramin Bank” as party respondent No. 5. 4. It is pertinent to mention here that the order for correction /amendment in the writ application is made with consent of both the parties and now the main application is taken up for the hearing. 5. The instant application has been preferred by the petitioner for quashing the order dated 11.07.2007 and 10.09.2005 as well as 24.07.2009, whereby the petitioner has been punished under clause 38 of the Santhal Pargana Gramin Bank Employee Regulation, 2001. 6. The petitioner had earlier moved before this Court in W.P. (S) No. 6091 of 2007 challenging the order dated 10.09.2005, whereby the petitioner was punished under the provision of Clause 38 of the Santhal Pargana Gramin Bank Regulation (herein after referred as Regulation). The said writ application was disposed of by remitting the matter back as contemplated under rule 48 of the Regulation 2001 to hear the appeal afresh on its own merit after giving the opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The operative portion of the order is quoted herein-below: “Be that as it may, since the matter was not disposed of on merits, it will be in the interest of justice to remit the matter back as contemplated under Rule 48 of Santhal Pargana Gramin Bank Officers and Employees Regulation, 2001 to hear the appeal afresh preferred by the petitioner on its own merit after giving an opportunity of hearing. It is also directed that the appeal should be disposed of preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 7. Pursuant to the said order, the appeal was decided against the petitioner vide order dated 24.07.2009 which is Annexure-1 to the instant writ application. 8. It is also directed that the appeal should be disposed of preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 7. Pursuant to the said order, the appeal was decided against the petitioner vide order dated 24.07.2009 which is Annexure-1 to the instant writ application. 8. The short question involve in this case is that the appellate authority without appreciating the contention raised by the petitioner has upheld the order of punishment. Learned counsel contended that no reason whatsoever has been given by the appellate authority. As such, the aforesaid order is devoid of merit and fit to be quashed on the sole ground that it has been passed with non application of mind. 9. A counter affidavit has been filed in this case wherein the respondent authorities have supported the impugned order and taken a specific plea of delay and latches. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the instant petition has been filed with much delay inasmuch as the appellate order is dated 24.07.2009 and no reason has been stated in the writ application for waiting for almost 3 years and then filing the instant writ application. As such, the instant writ application should be dismissed on this ground alone. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent further submit that now the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has been merged to Jharkhand Gramin Bank having its head office at Ranchi which has been impleaded as respondent No. 5 in the instant case. He fairly submits that though the order is not well reasoned but the facts of the case is that the allegation as against the petitioner was well proved by the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority after giving him show cause notice awarded the punishment. 12. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record it appears that no reason, whatsoever, has been assigned in the appellate order. For brevity, the operative portion of the appellate order is quoted herein-below: “The Appellate Authority has gone through the charge-sheet, enquiry report, employee submission and employee's argument as placed on 24.07.09 before the Appellate Authority. Considering all the facts the Appellate Authority came to conclusion that irregularities such as tampering of security documents, misutilisation of Govt. subsidy and not adhering of Bank's system and procedures are of very serious nature. Considering all the facts the Appellate Authority came to conclusion that irregularities such as tampering of security documents, misutilisation of Govt. subsidy and not adhering of Bank's system and procedures are of very serious nature. Despite of all these irregularities of high order committed by Sri. Manoj Kumar Jha, as Branch Manager of Barkiyari branch, the Disciplinary Authority has taken a lenient view in passing the punishment order. In view of the above facts, we have decided to uphold the decision taken by the Disciplinary Authority under clause 38 of SPGB Officers and Employees Service Regulation 2001 and confirm the order which the charge sheeted officer deserves.” 13. From perusal of the aforesaid order it clearly transpires that no reason has been assigned by the appellate authority. The petitioner has raised several grounds in his appeal, however, the same has not been considered at all by the appellate authority. Now it is a settled law that any order either passed by the disciplinary authority or by the appellate authority has to discuss the grounds taken by the delinquent employee and pass a reasoned order. 14. From perusal of the appellate order it clearly transpires that the grounds which has been taken by the petitioner has not been discussed at all. 15. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order dated 24.07.2009 is hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to the respondent No. 5 to look into the matter and pass a speaking and reasoned order. It goes without saying that since the respondent Nos. 1 has merged with the respondent No. 5, as such, the respondent No. 5 shall look into the matter afresh only on the question of punishment by deciding the grounds raised by the petitioner in his second show cause notice within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of copy of the order. It is clarified that since the matter quite old as such, if the appellate authority deems fit, he can issue notice to the petitioner to file copy of the second show cause if the said show cause is not available before the respondent No. 5. 16. It is made clear that if any notice is received by the petitioner, he shall file the copy of the reply to the show-cause what was filed earlier and no new grounds shall be agitated. 17. 16. It is made clear that if any notice is received by the petitioner, he shall file the copy of the reply to the show-cause what was filed earlier and no new grounds shall be agitated. 17. With the aforesaid discussions, the instant application is disposed of.