Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 181 (RAJ)

Anil Kothari v. Mewar Aanchalik Gramin Bank

2024-01-30

PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2024
JUDGMENT : 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred claiming the following reliefs : “It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be accepted and I. by an appropriate writ, order or direction - I/a. Order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 10.06.2000 (Ann.24) and Appellate Order dated 10.01.2002 (Ann.32) may be declared to be invalid and be quashed with all consequential benefits; I/b. further the Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct not to hold de-novo enquiry against the Petitioner. II. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction as may be considered proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be made. III. Cost of the writ petition be allowed to the Petitioner.” 2. Brief facts of the case, as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the petitioner, are that while the petitioner was posted as Manager in Losing Branch of the respondent-Bank, he faced the charges of unauthorized absence from duty on 12.12.1985 and with regard to distorting the Bank’s record so as to prove fictitious his presence in the Bank on that date; giving false report about his presence, the petitioner allowed one Shri U.P. Gaur on 18.11.1985 to tamper with the Bank’s record and gave a false T.A. bill of Rs.596/- claiming a sum of Rs.216/- out of the same under the head of transporting household goods by truck; on the said charges, a charge sheet was issued on 25.03.1986 against the petitioner. The petitioner filed a reply and denied the same. 2.1. Thereafter, the Inquiry Officer was appointed and the petitioner raised an objection regarding the process of the inquiry, whereafter the Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 23.03.1987 before the Chairman of the respondent-Bank; copy of the report and the show-cause notice was served upon the petitioner vide letter dated 30.04.1987, and the petitioner submitted his reply on 11.05.1987 and also appeared before the Chairman. 2.2. Thereafter, the Chairman of the respondent-Bank passed an order dated 18.06.1987 for removal of the petitioner from the services. Being aggrieved of the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Board of Directors, but the same was dismissed vide order dated 18.08.1988. 2.2. Thereafter, the Chairman of the respondent-Bank passed an order dated 18.06.1987 for removal of the petitioner from the services. Being aggrieved of the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Board of Directors, but the same was dismissed vide order dated 18.08.1988. The petitioner thereafter filed a writ petition (S.B.C.W.P. No. 3253/1988) before this Hon’ble Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 03.08.1999, quashing the aforesaid removal of the petitioner from services, whereafter, the respondents vide order dated 19.08.1999 reinstated the petitioner in service, in accordance with the aforesaid order dated 03.08.1999. 2.3. Subsequently, the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 29.08.1999 issued a show cause notice to the petitioner seeking his explanation as to why proposed punishment should not be imposed upon the petitioner, to which the petitioner submitted his reply. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority vide impugned order dated 10.06.2000 dismissed the petitioner from service, while also denying him the back-wages for the period from 18.06.1987 to 19.08.1999. Against the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before Board of Directors, which was dismissed on 10.01.2002. 2.4. Thus, being aggrieved of the impugned orders dated 10.6.2000 and 10.01.2002, the present petition has been preferred claiming the afore-quoted reliefs. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not allowed to avail services of one Shri Changanlal Kothari to put forth his defence during the inquiry proceedings, and therefore, the proceeding must fail on that ground alone. It was further submitted that the Inquiry Officer did not apply his mind, while conducting the inquiry, which is highly illegal and violative of the Constitution of India. 3.1. Learned counsel further submitted that the entire inquiry proceeding should be vitiated on the ground that no fresh statement of the witnesses was recorded after the order dated 03.08.1999 passed by the Hon’ble Court in the aforementioned writ petition. It was further submitted that no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner in support of his defence. 3.2. Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner was not permitted by the concerned authority to get himself represented in defence by an appropriate officer, and therefore on that ground the inquiry is void and required to be vitiated. It was further submitted that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner by the respondents is quite harsh as compared to the charges levelled against the petitioner. 3.3. It was further submitted that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner by the respondents is quite harsh as compared to the charges levelled against the petitioner. 3.3. In support of such submissions, learned counsel relied upon the following judgments:- (a) ORYX Fisheries Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. (2010) 13 SCC 427 ; (b) Siemens Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2006) 12 SCC 33 ; (c) J.K. Aggarwal Vs. Haryana Seeds Development Corp. Ltd. & Ors. (1991) 2 SCC 283 ; and (d) Pratibha Singhal (Smt) Vs. Bank of Baroda & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9930 of 2009, decided by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court at Jaipur Bench on 13.04.2017). 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, while opposing the aforesaid submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner sought permission to be defended by one Shri Chhagan Lal and the said permission was denied by the respondents in accordance with the provisions of Mewar Anchalik Gramin Bank Staff Services Regulations, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Regulations of 1983’). It was further submitted that the inquiry officer suggested to the petitioner to avail the services of an employee of the respondent-Bank and the same was agreed by the petitioner without any objection, which is reflected in the minutes of inquiry dated 10.05.1986. 4.1. Learned counsel also submitted that during the entire proceeding, the petitioner was given due chance to cross-examine each of the witnesses, and during the proceeding, he has not even raised any objection, and that proper opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner, and therefore, the entire proceeding was conducted as per the provisions of the law. 4.2. Learned counsel further submitted that as per the minutes of the inquiry dated 20.06.1986, the petitioner agreed that the previously recorded statements may be tendered in evidence, provided the witness accepts that such statement was given by him, and therefore, it is not open for the petitioner to now contend that the procedure adopted by the enquiry officer is contrary to law. It was also submitted that as regards some of the witnesses, the petitioner himself chose not to cross-examine them. 4.3. It was also submitted that as regards some of the witnesses, the petitioner himself chose not to cross-examine them. 4.3. Learned counsel also submitted that the petitioner was found to be running from the premises of the Bank with his own personal file, and at that time, he was caught red-handed by the then Branch Manager, and in such circumstances Shri Lokendra Singh Shaktawat, the then Branch Manager lodged an FIR, in furtherance of which, the petitioner was convicted in connection with the said FIR, but in appeal, he was acquitted by the competent Court. 4.4. Learned counsel also submitted that as per the Regulations of 1983, an employee is not entitled to engage a legal practitioner for the purpose of inquiry proceedings. In the course of inquiry, the petitioner was asked for defence nominee and he agreed that he will not call any other person, except the employee of the respondent-Bank, as defence nominee, but later on, the person named by the petitioner i.e. Shri Chagan Lal Kothari, was sought to be produced as defence nominee of the petitioner, despite the fact that Shri Kothari was not an employee of the respondent-Bank, and therefore, the said request was rightly rejected by the respondents. 4.5. Learned counsel further submitted that as per the minutes of inquiry dated 11.08.1986, 09.09.1986, 22.10.1986, 15.11.1986, 04.12.1986, 12.12.1986 and 22.12.1986, the petitioner presented himself for the proceedings, but refused to put his signatures and the same was recorded by the enquiry officer in the minutes dated 22.12.1986. 4.6 In support of such submissions, learned counsel relied upon the judgment rendered by a Coordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court in the case of B.R. Gambhir Vs Bank of India & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1899/2004, decided on 17.01.2014). 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties as well as perused the record of the case alongwith judgments cited at the Bar. 6. This Court observes that the petitioner was posted as Manager in Losing Branch of the respondent-Bank in the year 1984; during the service period, he faced the aforementioned charges, and a charge sheet was issued on 25.03.1986 against the petitioner. Thereafter, the inquiry was conducted, whereupon the Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 23.03.1987 before the Chairman of the respondent-Bank; copy of the report and the show-cause notice was served upon the petitioner. 6.1. Thereafter, the inquiry was conducted, whereupon the Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 23.03.1987 before the Chairman of the respondent-Bank; copy of the report and the show-cause notice was served upon the petitioner. 6.1. Thereafter, the Chairman of the respondent-Bank passed the order dated 18.06.1987 for removal of the petitioner from the services. Being aggrieved of the same, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Board of Directors, but the same was dismissed vide order dated 18.08.1988. The petitioner thereafter filed a writ petition (S.B.C.W.P. No. 3253/1988) before this Hon’ble Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 03.08.1999, quashing the aforesaid order of removal of the petitioner from services, whereafter, the respondents vide order dated 19.08.1999 reinstated the petitioner in service, in accordance with the aforesaid order dated 03.08.1999. The aforesaid order dated 03.08.1999 was challenged before the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in D.B. Special Appeal No. 1094/1999, which was disposed of on 16.03.2000 of, while directing the disciplinary authority to complete the proceedings within period of three months from the date of passing of the order. 6.2. Subsequently, the disciplinary authority vide order dated 29.08.1999 issued a show cause notice to which the petitioner submitted his reply. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority vide the impugned order dated 10.06.2000 dismissed the petitioner from service, while also denying him the back-wages for the period from 18.06.1987 to 19.08.1999. Against the same, the petitioner preferred an appeal before Board of Directors, which was dismissed on 10.01.2002. 7. This Court further observes that the petitioner was charged with the allegation of unauthorized absence from duty on 12.12.1985 and with regard to distorting the Bank’s record so as to prove fictitious his presence in the Bank on that date; giving false report about his presence; the petitioner allowed one Shri U.P. Gaur on 18.11.1985 to tamper with the Bank’s record and gave a false T.A. bill of Rs.596/- claiming a sum of Rs.216/- out of the same under the head of transporting household goods by truck. This Court also observes that the said charges were properly examined by the disciplinary authority, and thereafter, the impugned orders were passed. 8. This Court also observes that the said charges were properly examined by the disciplinary authority, and thereafter, the impugned orders were passed. 8. This Court further observes that the petitioner was appointed in the year 1984 and the charge-sheet was issued to him in the year of 1987, and thus, within the short span of service, the petitioner’s conduct was found to be such, which was said to be unbecoming of his being an employee of the respondent-Bank, Therefore, the impugned orders are justified in law. 9. This Court also observes that after the judgments dated 03.08.1999 and 16.03.2000 passed by this Hon’ble Court in the aforementioned petition and the appeal, respectively, the disciplinary authority, after considering all the material and evidence so made available, passed a reasoned and speaking order, and rightly so. This Court further observes that the appeal was also dismissed by the appellate authority vide the impugned order dated 10.01.2002, finding the earlier impugned order as well reasoned. 10. The judgments cited on behalf of the petitioner also do not render any assistance to his case. 11. Thus, in light of the aforesaid observations and looking into the factual matrix of the present case, this Court does not find it a fit case so as to grant any relief to the petitioner in the present petition. 12. Consequently, the present petition is dismissed. All pending applications stand disposed of.