Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 1258 (GUJ)

K. C. Trivedi v. Dena Bank

2022-10-07

BHARGAV D.KARIA

body2022
JUDGMENT : Heard learned advocate Mr.Vishal B. Mehta for the petitioner and learned advocate Mr.Varun K. Patel for the respondent No.3. 1. Learned advocate Mr.Vishal Mehta has tendered a draft amendment to substitute the respondent- Dena Bank as the same is merged with Bank of Baroda. The same is allowed in terms of the draft. To be carried out forthwith. 2. Learned advocate Mr.Varun Patel states at bar that he has instructions to appear for the Bank of Baroda and therefore, no notice is required to be issued to the substituted respondent. 3. With consent of the learned advocates for the respective parties, the matter is taken up for hearing. The petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: “(a) Be pleased to issue a writ or mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, quashing and setting aside the impugned orders at Annexure F, H and M to this Petition and be further Pleased to direct the respondentbank to reinstate the petitioner even notionally to the service with all consequential benefits; (b) Pending admission hearing and final disposal of this Petition, be pleased to stay the further operation, implementation and execution of the impugned orders at Annexures F, H and M to this Petition and be further pleased to grant appropriate relief in the interest of justice for notionally reinstating the petitioner till the age of superannuation with consequential effect and benefits.” 4.1. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was dismissed from service pursuant to the charge-sheet dated 11.05.1990. The petitioner challenged the dismissal order before the Appellate Authority. The Appeal of the petitioner was also dismissed by order dated 17th March, 1992. 4.2. Being aggrieved by the dismissal order which was confirmed in Appeal, the petitioner preferred Special Civil Application No.7947 of 1992. 4.3. The petitioner withdrew the said Special Civil Application so as to prefer representations to the concerned authority of the Bank for reconsideration on the point of penalty. The order dated 23rd March, 2006 passed by this Court (Coram: Hon’ble Mr.Justice S.R.Brahmbhatt as his Lordship was then)in Special Civil Application No.7947 of 1992 reads as under : “1. Shri. A.J. Shastri, learned counsel for the petitioner states under instructions form his client that in view of the additional affidavit filed, petitioner is desirous of making representation to the concerned authority of the Bank for reconsideration on the point of penalty. Shri. A.J. Shastri, learned counsel for the petitioner states under instructions form his client that in view of the additional affidavit filed, petitioner is desirous of making representation to the concerned authority of the Bank for reconsideration on the point of penalty. The respondent Bank may decide the same as expeditiously as possible. In view of this, petitioner is seeking permission to withdraw this petition at this stage. 2. The permission as sought for is granted. Matter is permitted to be withdrawn at this stage. Respondent Bank is expected to decide the representation that may be made by the petitioner, preferably within a period of 3 months from the date of its receipt. With the above observations, petition is disposed of as withdrawn at this stage. Rule is discharged. Interim relief if any stands vacated. No order as to costs.” 4.4. Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred a detailed representation dated 27th March, 2006. However, the respondent- Authority rejected the representation by letter/order dated 22nd July, 2006 which reads as under : “Shri Kishorbhai C. Trivedi 7, Dena Bank Staff Society, Near Kiran Park, Navavadaj, Ahmedabad. Dear Sir, Re : In the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad - Special Civil Application No. 7947 of 1992 - K.C. Trivedi V/s. Dena Bank. This is in reference to your representation dated 27/03/2006 pursuant to order dated 23/03/2006 of the Hon,ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in the matter of SCA No. 7947 of 1992. In this context, your representation was placed before the Competent Authority to lake a view in the matter. The Competent Authority after going through your representation and taking into. account the facts of the case has observed that, the penalty of Removal from the Bank service with immediate effect imposed upon you is commensurate with the gravity of the proved misconduct and does not merit any reconsideration. With regard to your terminal benefits, our G.M’s Office (Gujarat), Ahmedabad have been informed to complete the formalities for settlement of the same. Yours faithfully, Asst. General Manager (HRM)” 5.1. Learned advocate Mr.Vishal Mehta submitted that being aggrieved by the order dated 22nd July, 2006, petitioner has preferred this petition with the aforesaid prayers. With regard to your terminal benefits, our G.M’s Office (Gujarat), Ahmedabad have been informed to complete the formalities for settlement of the same. Yours faithfully, Asst. General Manager (HRM)” 5.1. Learned advocate Mr.Vishal Mehta submitted that being aggrieved by the order dated 22nd July, 2006, petitioner has preferred this petition with the aforesaid prayers. It was submitted that the respondent-Dena Bank by order dated 22nd July, 2006 rejected the representation of the petitioner without assigning any reason with only observation that penalty of removal from the Bank service with immediate effect imposed upon the petitioner is commensurate with the gravity of the proved misconduct and does not merit any reconsideration. 5.2. It was submitted that the petitioner, in the representation dated 27th March, 2006 has submitted various details on the aspect of penalty as the same according to the petitioner does not commensurate with the charges levelled and stated to have been proved against the petitioner. 5.3. It was therefore submitted that the impugned order dated 22nd July, 2006 is without any reason and therefore liable to be quashed and set aside. 6.1. On the other hand, learned advocate Mr.Varun Patel submitted that considering the charges levelled against the petitioner and the gravity of such charges which are proved during the course of inquiry proceedings, the petitioner has been rightly dismissed from service. 6.2. In support of his submission, he relied upon the following averments made in affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondents: “6. With reference to the contention raised by the petitioner in paragraph no. 16 and 18, the respondent denies each and every contentions and averments made therein. It is categorically denied by the respondent that the chargesheet issued to the Petitioner was vague and was issued without authority. It is submitted that charge-sheet issued to the petitioner was in consonance with the rules and regulations of the respondent bank. 7. With reference to the contention raised by the petitioner in para 19 the respondent denies each and every contention and averment made therein. It is submitted that the petitioner for the first time has come up with a vague plea that he was not supplied with the requisite documents on which chargesheet was issued and on which management had relied upon. The aforesaid contention was not taken by the petitioner before the appellate authority. It is submitted that the petitioner for the first time has come up with a vague plea that he was not supplied with the requisite documents on which chargesheet was issued and on which management had relied upon. The aforesaid contention was not taken by the petitioner before the appellate authority. It is submitted that petitioner has further failed to give details about the documents which were not supplied to him and were relied upon by the management. The petitioner has also failed to show any prejudice caused to him due to alleged non-supply of documents. 8. With reference to the contention raised by the petitioner in para 20, the respondent denies each and every contention and averment made therein. It is categorically denied that the respondent no.3 had initiated the inquiry against the petitioner with biased mind. 9. With reference to the contention raised by the petitioner in para 21, the respondent denies each and every contention and averment made therein. It is submitted that departmental inquiry conducted against the petitioner was in consonance with the principle of natural justice and the inquiry officer had given the petitioner all the opportunities to defend himself. With reference to the averment of the petitioner that inquiry officer had permitted the management to produce documents in midst of the inquiry, it is submitted that the said contention was not taken by the petitioner before the appellate authority and same is taken for very first before this Hon’ble Court which in respectful submission of the respondent is impermissible in law. It is further submitted that the petitioner has even failed to give details about the documents which were allegedly produced b the management during the inquiry. The petitioner has also failed to show any prejudice caused to him due to alleged production of documents by the management during the inquiry. 10. With reference to the contention raised by the petitioner in para 22, the respondent denies each and every contention and averment made therein. The contention and averment raised by the petitioner in said para are erroneous, vague and without any substance. The answering respondent denies the same in toto. It is further submitted that inquiry conducted against the petitioner was in consonance with the principles of natural justice and service rules and findings inquiry officer are based on evidence. 11. The contention and averment raised by the petitioner in said para are erroneous, vague and without any substance. The answering respondent denies the same in toto. It is further submitted that inquiry conducted against the petitioner was in consonance with the principles of natural justice and service rules and findings inquiry officer are based on evidence. 11. With reference to the contention raised by the petitioner in para 23, the respondent denies each and every contention and averment made therein. It is further submitted that inquiry officer after considering all the evidence and reply of the petitioner has concluded that all the charges relating to irregularities with respect to loan transaction as proved. 12. With reference to the contention raised by the petitioner in para 24 and 25 the respondent denies each and every contentions and averments made therein. It is categorically denied that the said order passed by the respondent no.3 was passed mechanically and without application of mind. It is submitted that the contention raised in the aforesaid para are contrary to law. The disciplinary authority is not supposed to give separate detailed reasons while concurring with report of inquiry authority and passing order of punishment. 13. With reference to the contention raised by the petitioner in para 26, the respondent denies each and every contention and averment made therein. It is submitted that respondent no 1 while rejecting the appeal of the petitioner had in detail considered the each and every averments of the petitioner. 14. With reference to the contention raised by the petitioner in para 27, the respondent denies each and every contentions and averments made therein. It is submitted that as per the provisions of the Dena Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 the petitioner is not entitled for the personal hearing at the stage of appeal. 15. With reference to the contention raised by the petitioner in para 28, the respondent denies each and every contentions and averments made therein. It is submitted that petitioner was supplied with the articles of charge along with the statement of imputation of misconduct and misbehavior. The petitioner himself had admitted the fact that he was supplied with articles of charges during the inquiry proceedings before the inquiry officer. Annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-II is the copy relevant portion of inquiry proceedings. 16. It is submitted that petitioner was supplied with the articles of charge along with the statement of imputation of misconduct and misbehavior. The petitioner himself had admitted the fact that he was supplied with articles of charges during the inquiry proceedings before the inquiry officer. Annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-II is the copy relevant portion of inquiry proceedings. 16. With reference to the contention raised by the petitioner in para 29 the respondent denies each and every contention and averment made therein. The contention raised by the petitioner in the aforesaid para was specifically dealt with by the appellate authority in its order by observing that since the vigilance report was not relied upon in the inquiry the question of suppling the same to the petitioner does not arise. 17. With reference to the contention raised by the petitioner in para 30, the respondent denies each and every contention and averment made therein. The respondent bank further categorically denies the fact that there was breach of Rule 6(5) of the Dena Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976. 18. With reference to the contention raised by the petitioner in para 31, the respondent denies each and every contention and averment made therein, It is submitted that appellate authority while passing the impugned order rejecting the appeal of the petitioner has dealt with all the contentions and averments raised by the petitioner. The appellate authority after appreciating all the evidence on the record had rightly rejected the appeal of the petitioner. Thus, the contention of the petitioner that appellate authority had failed to appreciate the evidence on record is completely false and untenable. 19. With reference to the contention raised by the petitioner in para 32, the respondent denies each and every contention and averment made therein. It is submitted that even though loan were sponsored by the Govt. Agency, it is the prime responsibility of the branch manager to verify the proposals and only after satisfying himself with genuineness of the case and keeping in view the interest of the bank and norms of lending, should such loan be sanctioned and granted. The petitioner however in the present case before approving the loans had completely failed in carrying out prior investigation and pre-sanction visits to find out whether the project of the borrower is viable or feasible. The petitioner however in the present case before approving the loans had completely failed in carrying out prior investigation and pre-sanction visits to find out whether the project of the borrower is viable or feasible. Thus, petitioner cannot take defend his derelictions in duties just because of the fact that loans were sponsored by the government agency. 20. With reference to the contention raised by the petitioner in para 33, the respondent denies each and every contention and averment made therein. It is submitted that petitioner has contended that since similarly situated employee were given lenient punishment the petitioner is also entitled to similar treatment. However, petitioner in support of his aforesaid contention has completely failed to show how his case was identical to the case of other employees of the respondent bank. Even otherwise it is denied that the similarly charged employees of the respondent bank were given lenient punishment. 21. With reference to the contention raised by the petitioner in para 35, the respondent denies each and every contention and averment made therein. It is submitted that as per the Rule 6(7) of Dena Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 only if the presenting officer appointed by the disciplinary authority is legal practitioner, the charge sheeted employee would have right to be defended by a lawyer at the inquiry proceedings. In the present case the since the presenting officer appointed by the bank was also a bank official there was no question of permitting petitioner to engage lawyer for his defense. 22. With reference to the contention raised by the petitioner in para 36 and 37, the respondent denies each and every contention and averment made therein. It is submitted that the fact whether or not bank has taken any action against borrowers for recovering the loan amount would in no manner have any bearing upon the lapses and dereliction committed by the petitioner as branch manager. Even if bank has not taken action against the borrowers the same would not absolve the petitioner from his lapses and dereliction in duties. 23. With reference to the contention raised by the petitioner in para 38 and 39, the respondent denies each and every contention and averment made therein. Even if bank has not taken action against the borrowers the same would not absolve the petitioner from his lapses and dereliction in duties. 23. With reference to the contention raised by the petitioner in para 38 and 39, the respondent denies each and every contention and averment made therein. It is submitted that the representation of the petitioner dated 27.03.2006 for reconsideration of the penalty imposed upon the petitioner was duly considered by the competent authority of the respondent bank. The competent authority after taking into consideration the case of the petitioner decided not to reconsider the punishment imposed upon the petitioner. It is submitted that said decision of the competent authority of the respondent bank is neither arbitrary nor violative of the Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 24. With reference to the contention raised by the petitioner in para 40, the respondent denies each and every contention and averment made therein. It is submitted that this Hon’ble Court while permitting the petitioner to withdraw earlier petition being SCA No. 7947 of 1992 by its order dated 23.03.2006 had no where directed the respondent bank to grant the petitioner opportunity of personal hearing before deciding the representation of the petitioner. Even otherwise also non-granting granting of personal hearing would not ipso fact lead to violation of principle of natural justice in each and every case.” 6.3. Relying upon the aforesaid averments, it was submitted by learned advocate Mr.Patel that no interference is required to be made as the representation of the petitioner has been rightly rejected so far as the quantum of penalty imposed upon the petitioner is concerned. 7. Having heard the learned advocates of the respective parties and upon perusal of the material on record, it appears the petitioner has withdrawn the Special Civil Application No.7947 of 1992 so as to make a representation before the respondent-Bank for reconsideration of the representation only on the point of penalty. However, without considering the detailed representation made by the petitioner, the respondent-Bank by the impugned order dated 22nd July, 2006 without assigning any reason for rejecting such representation, dismissed the same by observing stereotype remark that “penalty of removal from the Bank service with immediate effect imposed upon the petitioner is commensurate with the gravity of the proved misconduct and does not merit any reconsideration.” 8. The above observation made in the impugned order is not supported by any reason and in the impugned order the respondent has also not dealt with any of the submissions made in the detailed representation dated 27th March, 2006 made by the petitioner. 9. In view of the above undisputed facts, the impugned order dated 22nd July, 2006 is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent-Bank is directed to reconsider the representation of the made by the petitioner on 27th March, 2006 within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of this order considering the fact that the petition is pending before this Court for last more than 15 years. 10. It is clarified that this Court has not gone into the merits of the matter and the petition is disposed of only on the limited ground of reconsideration of the representation by the respondent-Bank, so as to enable the respondent- Bank to pass detailed reasoned order. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. No order as to cost. Direct service is permitted.