IN IHE HIGH CGJRT OF MADHYD PRADESH AT Ji‘xBALPUR M.P.N .Wé OF 99 Narendra Kumar Tiwari S/o. Shri Gorelal Tiwari, ExaBranch manager, ‘ Bll aspur—Ralpur Ksh etrly a Grcmln Bank, Head Offlce ._ Bilaspur, Resident bf — . Sark‘anda, Bilaspur (M.P.) PETITIQNER _v__E_R‘_s U s 2. 1. Blldspur—Ralpur Kshetrly Gramn Bank, Head Offlce Dayalband, Bilaspur (M.P.), The Giairman, Bilaspur — ‘ Raipur Kshetriya Grannin Bank, Head Office — Dayalband, Bilaspur, M.P.; 1 3. The Board of Director$, Bilaspur—fiaipur Kshetriya Bank, I‘bad Office - Daya’lband, Bilaspur, M.P. RESPONDENTS . . ‘ ITIoN UNDER ARTICL£ 226 227 OP THE OONsTITU'uoN E INDM FOR ISSUMLE OP A wan OF MANDaMUS OR ‘ mha AFPROPRIaTE WRIT OR ORDER OR DIRECTION IN ma NMURE OF WRIT ETC. The Petitioner named above respectfully ‘ \ ‘ begs ta apply as follows :- That the Petitioner is a citizen of India. He is ex—Branch Mariager of Bilaspur-Raipui: ‘ ; 1. ../2 .. a V‘ xl‘ "K ‘1‘ O ‘T c 1 HIGH CQURT OF JUD!CATURE CHHATTISGARH : AT BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON’BLE SHRI SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, J. WRIT PETITION NO. 146 OF 1991 PETITIONER: Narendra Kumar Tiwari RESPONDENTS: . Bilaspur- Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank & others. Present: Shri P.S. Koshy and Shri Aneesh Pandey. counsel for the ‘ petitioner. Shri Kashif Shakee! and Shri P.K. Bhaduri, counsel for the respondents. 0 R D E R (Passed on I2— ”‘July, 2606) The present writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India impugns the orders dated 25l10/1 989 (Annexure—P/1) and 12/06/1990 (Annexure-P/Z) on the ground that the petitioner was denied reasonable and adeduate opportunity of defence in violation of the Regulation 30 (2) of Bilaspur — Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank Staff Service Regulation. 1980 (hereinafter referred to as “Regulation"). The petitioner was not supplied the list of documents and list of witnesses along with the charge-sheet before commencement of the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer was the Branch Manager, Sarsiwa Branch holding the same rank and as such he was incompetent to conduct the enquiry. (2) The undisputed facts. in nut shell, are that the petitioner was working as Branch Manager of Marod Branch of Bilaspur — Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank, when he was placed under suspension by order dated 28/02/1 986 (Annexue—P/3). A ¢ase was also registered against the petitioner punishabie under the provisions of Section 420 of indian Pena! Code. The petitioner was arrested and released on baii on 03/11l1985. The petitioner was served with a marge-sheet dated 15/10/1986 (Annexure-PM) containing one charge, which reads as under: ix "mmm#mmamamm§q mmwmamwmahmmmaiw mmma,mmmmwmmm§q WE§aham§qmgtmfimmwa5aagem mW/Wmamwgtmwmamda awwmmmwmwmmwmim mmwahhaamwmmwqam mnmgqmrai mwagahmww W§mmméaami§mahmso(1) aimm‘irri WWWai mwamma‘aw W@W30(2)$W$mmqimmw Wwwwemwmmmweww mim‘e‘farwwdmmmmme": O (3) Reply to the said charge-sheet was tiled by the petitioner on 30/10/1986 (Annexure—P/5). After nling of the reply, no action was taken by the Disciplinary Authority. ln the meantime, another charge-sheet dated 02/02/1987 (Annexure-P/6) containing seven charges was issued against the petitioner. The said charges are as under: “(0W M am. WW W" grim-1, Emma, wwwmmdwmmmmtaw Mdwggmawggaawgmwasgg. i§£a§m§§w§§$§§§$ i$ww§m§§§gm§§m§$§aw iiEsggggaw _§§§€&§& agamwgaqagiiwgmwgmwg ama§§§w _§§§§§1§§ §w%.gai§m&&§§i&§§§%ga £m§3&§w§giw $%%§§% §§aamoe§m§a§w_ 3 §&§§§§§§§§% $i§§§g§m§§gma§$m @§%%&Wa&§§daa@§@§§§ a§§w§E§Nww§q§3m§£wm§¢w$§§m2 aw? *amaaiggAgEaga §§§§m%§w‘&%%§§%m§ :Lmmmwo cvgwgaddgw. A3 awn§§§§§$§Awd§§>§§ §§§gw§§&§§@@§§. §&§§§_ $§§§§€E§¢§$ ggamagbcormwwgqwngmgigagdg : ,W W 7v. : ,W , w 7 M i , ¢WWWW§EW§W$W1iw¢w (1) Ma'awfawé‘l (6) mwgftaémmwmmwmw mma%mmwwym§wwa§m#mm Wmwmmw$mmm$mm mmmmm {Wugmqawmmzm §§WWEM¥¢WWWR§W§W§IW QEWW$W1L19QMO (1)$8iaTfHW%l (7) WE‘M m,aw,mm,m,mw, 3mm WWWa%agfm§mwahmaa§en+w%§m WWQ®WM,EWWW1#WH% mm% IWWWW_W$WH%W m§w1gawa§mmmwmqawmw‘ mwvmm‘a‘l .w (4) It is alleged that no list of witnesses and list of documents with the charge-sheet were supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply to the seccnd charge-sheet on 03/04/1987 (Annexure-P/7) pleading not guilty of all the charges. The charge-sheet dated 02/02/1987 (Annexure-P/E) was amended subsequently by letter dated 15/05/1987 (Annexure-P/8), which reads as under: WWWdWWWW§~ k4 K wf @v §§Q.A@§§§§§&§QE§ a§§¢a§w$qw§§§§§§ Aw; §a§&a%ag%%%§alaa§% , wa§w%§&§§A&m%m.wm§v& g gaw g4 a. g8? g “ms@gw.an;amwazmm gmAagmmwwggamwmmwgg §v§§$wmmu§m§§§&§§_ §§Q%§%§%§&§ %&a§§§§&m§g&m§&§w, ag§§g§§§g§g @éif %§§§&§§m§§ s§gg%£§a§§3£§ga§a Q¢§x§§i§$§i$ ~§$ a§§§§wa§§wawgg£ammmw§§ g&§%%§§a§§@ia% §¢§§§§aa§§§w: 35% §§&§w_ A4; gamgwagqwqmaglgqamaalaig £§§m§%&§§§€&ii %§%§£§§§§m§&§§gi& gggggw: &§£w£m§§awu §i§a@a&§m§%g§§£i $§3§¢w§§%&i&§§%§m§ §§g§$§w§é§§wg§w§§ §a§§%ag%_ $§§w§ §§§§$mw§$§i$§3§§§ aq§a§$§iggg§§ %%§%%§w k % 7 mas®mm$mwsiiwmmm §W%WW W%mm§a&mWm 3%W%ft,m§mmm@ma§émmm w’ W1&Wwm%m1"$mwf§wmw ma- “mmgwwmwmmmwéw w®mfwmmqama€fmwmagww WW$WwmW§wmTwfiW$w WWI§ I” (5) The petitioner was caued upon to submit his reply to the amended charge-sheet. The petitioner submitted his reply to the amended charge- sheet on 22/06/1987 (Annexure-P/Q). After having received the reply of the petitioner, the respondents appointed one Shri M. Ram Prasad, Branch Manager of Sarsiwa Branch as Enquiry Officer. The petitioner was asked to submit his list of witnesses and documents in defence and the petitioner was supplied with a list of witnesses and that of documents. The enquiry was conducted in presence of the petitioner. ln the meantime, the petitioner was acquitted of the charge under Section 420/34 of the lndian Penal Code in Criminal Case No.2085/1 985, by order dated 01/12/1988 (Annexure-P/13). After examining entire evidence produced by the respondents as well as by the petitioner, the enquiry report dated 25/04/1988 (Annexure-P/15) was submitted to the Disciplinary Authority. ‘ The Disciplinary Authority issued a second show- cause notice to the petitioner on 06/06/1989 (Annexure—P/14) proposing penalty of dismissal. The petitioner submitted his reply to the show-cause notice on 05/07/1 989 (Annexure-P/1 6). Agreeing with the enquiry report, A the Disciplinary Authority imposed a major penaity of dismissal by order dared 25/10/1989 (Annexure-PM) on the petitioner from service. The appeal preferred to the Board of Directors was also dismissed on 02/12/1989 (Annexure-P/17), which was communicated to the petitioner by order dated 12/06/1 990 (Annexure-P/z). (6) Shri P,S. Koshy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the respondents have amended the charges on several occasions. as such the charge-sheet itself was vitiated. The entire enquiry report in respect of charge of the first charge-sheet was based on the evidence of one witness produced by the tespondents, who himself was involved in the said charge vide charge-sheet dated 15/10/1 986‘ He further submitted that the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case and he could not have been dismissed from the charges which have not been proved. In regard to charge—sheet dated 15/10/1986, it was submitted that no charge-sheet was issued against Shri Gajpalla and neither the Disciplinary Authority nor the Appellate Authority considered this charge while imposing the punishment of dismissal. ln regard to the second charge~sheet dated 02/02/1987, which contained seven charges, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has submitted his reply to the said charge-sheet on 03/04/1987. ln regard to the first charge, it was submitted that the State Government as well as the Head Quarters of the Bank had issued instructions for releasing loan by accepting affidavit and the Presenting Officer in the Departmental Enquiry, namely, Shri R,K. Gupta also admitted such an action before the Criminal Court which is evident from the order of acquittal dated 01/12/1988. in regard to the second charge, it was submitted that the petitioner has been exonerated from the said charge by the Enquiry Officer. ln regard to the third charge, it was submitted that a criminal proceeding was aiso initiated against the petitioner and he was anquitted of the said charge in the criminal case. No documents were produced by the Bank before the Enquiry Officer to prove the said charge. it was also submitted that Neera Bai was already a borrower of respondent No2-Bank when the petitioner assumed the charge of the Branch Marod and she had submitted no dues certificate of other banks except Dena Bank and, therefore, taking the past record of Neera Bai, the petitioner had granted loan to her. The loan amount had already been recovered in due course of time without causing any loss to the Bank and the said fact has also been stated before the Enquiry” Officer. The criteria for coming within the purview of IRDP, holding of land of a particular measurement alone was not the criteria, but, one of the basic requirement was the yearly income of the said family applying for the benefit under IRDP. ln regard to the fourth charge, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has already been acquitted of the said charge in the criminal case. The petitioner had made repeated reminders before the Enquiry Officer that Keja Bai and Harish Sahu are not husband and wife and said Harish sahu never gave any authority letter. lt was further submitted that to prove the said charge no witness was examined either in the departmental enquiry or before the criminal Court. ln regard to the fifth charge, learned counsel ’submitted that the said allegation has been disproved from the report of Shri M.K. Saji. The said report clearly shows that when Shri M.K. Saji visited the site he found a well with six feet width and the entire loan amount had been repaid by the borrower, as such no loss was caused to the Bank. The said M.K. Saii was neither examined in ‘ the departmental enquiry nor he was a witness before the Criminal Court. ln regard to the sixth charge, learned counsel submitted that the said aHegation has ah’eady been looked ir'yto by the Chairman ofthe Bank earlier and he had exonerated the petitioner after giving warning. It was submitted that the said charge has not been estabtished by the Bank by adducing any evidence, The said charge cannot be sustained as the cattle were purchased after verification by the Veterinary Doctor of the State Government and inspection was done by the Committee consisting of the representatives of the DRDA/ Block Development Office, Insurance w Company, Bank and the State Government. In regard to the charge N0], learned counsel submitted that the petitioner had been exonerated from the said charge by the Disciplinary Authority. Learned counsel further submitted that in View of the above stated facts. it is clear that the charges have not been proved on the basis of‘sufticient evidence and some charges are contrary to the instructions issued by the respondents. Thus, learned counsel submitted that the instant writ petition deserves to be allowed and the petitioner be reinstated in service with full back-wages. 4m 1 l ”V (7) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, in support of his submissions, placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Trambak Rubber Industries Ltd. Vs. Nashik Workers Union & others 1, wherein the Supreme Court held that where the findings are arbitrary and without any reasonable basis, interference by the High Court has been held to be justified. In the said case, the Supreme Court observed that there would have been travesty of justice if the High Court declined to interfere with the nndings which are arbitrary and without any reasonable basis. Learned counsel also submitted that similar view has 1. (2003) 6 S.C.C.-4‘l 6, also been taken by the Supreme Court in the cases of Yoginath D.Baqde Vs. State of Maharashtra and another 2, and Kuldeeg Sinqh Vs. Ccmmissionef of Police & othefs 3 . Learned counsel further ptacing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of GM. Tank Vs. State of Guiarat & another ‘, submitted that when the criminal praceedings and the departmental enquiry were initiated en the similar set of facts and evidence, and the delinquent employee has been acquitted from the Criminal Court, flndings contrary to this recorded in the departmental enquiry are unfair and cppressive and the dismiasal erder is liable to be quashed. Lastly, in regard to power of High Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India to interfere with the punishment, learned counsel placed reliance on the judgments in the cases of Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank a others Vs. P.C. Kakkar 5, and B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. Union of India and others at (8) Shri Kashif Shakeel, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, per contra, submitted that this Court has limited iurisdiction in the case of departmental enquiry where the petitioner — delinquent employee has. been given sufficient opportunity for placing his case before the Enquiry Ofdcer. it is submitted that the Enquiry Officer has considered all the materials produced by the parties and from the list of witnesses if only one witness is examined. the same does not vitiate the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer after having examined the entire materials at length. came W W iv , é 0). (i999) 7 SCC ~789 ‘, 3. (1999) 2 SCC —1O 2006 AIR SCW - 2709 ; 5. (1 995) 6 SCC ~ 749 ; (2003) 4 SCC —364 to the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of charge Nos. 1,3,4,5,6 and 7. The Disciplinary Authcrity did not agree with the Enquiry Officer so far as charge No.7 was concerned and the finding in charge No.6 is not pressed in this proceeding. ln regard to charge No.1, it is submitted that the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that he has acted in obedience with the instructions issued by the respondents in letter dated 13/01/1983 is not correct. It is submitted that the said letter was issued only to make the Branch Manager aware about the process of grant of loan in certain schemes and the said letter categorically states that ‘if the applicant is an agriculturist or artisan who has opted for loan under Gramin Vikas Karyakram, Trisem, Special Component Plan and 20 Point Programme, then only loan can be granted to him under altidavit and in all other cases loan must be granted after obtaining no due certificate. lt is submitted that there is also a letter dated 26/04/1986 which states that affidavits will be acceptable only if the applicant has taken loan under IRDP, Trisem and in all other cases loan will be sanctioned only after obtaining no dues certiticate. Thus, it is submitted that the petitioner cannot take shelter under the letter dated 13/01/1983 and the petitioner has committed serious misconduct and has been rightly held to be guilty. ln regard to charge No.3, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner had distributed loans to the persons not entitled to loans under IRDP as their land holdings exceed the limit of land holding. Under IRDP, loans can be granted to the most deserving farmers as it meant for help of those farmers Whose land holdings and yields are small and cannot sustain the expenditure of farming wholly on their own. ln regard to charge No.4, it was submitted that the petitioner has admitted in his examination that he indeed granted loan to the wife of Gram Sewak and she was introduced to him by the husband and upon the words of her husband, the petitioner without verifying her antecedents granted ioan to her oniy on the basis of oral assurance. in regard to charge No.5, it is submitted that the petitioner admitted that he sanctioned the ioan for construction of a we", but, thereafter when the Field Supervisor inspected the site he found that no well is existed and in fact some earth has been dug on that spot and that too in very smatl dimension. The report of the Field Supervisor was shown to the petitioner in the enquiry and on the basis of the said report the petitioner has been held guilty for granting loan for a bogus purpose, because he failed to show that the loan amount was utilized for the purpose for which it was actually taken. (9) Learned counset appearing for the respondents placed reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in the cases of Depot Manager, A.P. State Road Transpog Corporation Vs. Mghg. Yousuf Miya and others 7 ; Govind Das Vs. State of Bihar & others a; Rae Bareli Kshetriya Gramin Bank Vs. Bhola Nath Singh and others 9,; Apparel Export Promotion Council Vs. AK. Chopra w; State of Andhra Pradesh & others Vs. S. Sree Rama Rao ‘1 ;_ Tara Chand Vyas Vs. Chairman s Disciplinag Authority 8. others 12-, Rs. Saint Vs. State of Puniab and others ‘3, Reqional Manaqer. U.P. SRTC, Etawah and others Vs. Hotitat and another“. 7. (1 997) 2 S.C.C. 699 ; 8. (‘l 997) 11 S.C.C. 361 9. (1 997) 3 S.C.C. 657 ; ’lO. (1999)1 S.C.C. 759 'l‘l. AIR 1963 SC ~1723 ; 12. (1 997) 4 S.C.C. 665 14. 13. (1999) 8 SCC -90 : (2003) 3 S.C.C. -605. (10) Having heard learned counsel far the parties and perused the reccrds appended to the writ petition and to the re’tum, it is evident that charge Nos. 1,3,4 and 5 have been found proved on the basis of sufficient evidence. So far as charge No.6 is soncerned‘ that was given-up by the respondents at the time of hearing and charge No.7 which was found proved by the Enquiry Oftieer was aiso not accepted by the Discipiinary Autherity whiie passing the impugned order of imposition of major punishment of dismissai from service. 4M (1 1) With regard to the first objection that the enquiry was’conducted by the officer of the same rank‘ a Division Bench of High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Mohammad Ghouse Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh by its Chief secretary‘ Secretariat. Hyderabad ‘5 , absewed that ‘the essentiai eiement in‘the awarding of penaities and punishments against public servants is not as to who conducts the enquiry, but whether the person has been given the opportunities referred to abdve and that the enquiry is fair and unbiased. i am in respectful agreement with the above observation of the learned Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh , (1 2) With regard to the charge of the charge-sheet dated1 5/1 0/1 986, the finding was based on the evidence of one Shri Gajpalla. The objection that he himself was involved in the said incident and as such the enquiry was vitiated, is not tenable in law. The enquiry was conducted after affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and after having considered the evidence on record, the charge was found proved. 15. AIR 1959 AP, - 497. (13) With regard to charge No.1 of the second charge-éheet dated 02/02/1987, the contention of the petitioner that the State Government and the Head Quarters of the Bank had issued certain instructions for reieasing loan by accepting affidavit is not correct. Reading of Circular dated 13/01/1983 aiong with Ciroulars dated 26/04/1986 and 13/02/1983, would show that exemption from obtaining no due certificate was granted in cases of Integrated Rural Development Programme, Trisem, Special Component Plan and 20 Point Programme alone, not in all the cases of agriculturists. ln the present case. the petitioner has granted loan in all types of cases. without insisting for no dues certificate. The charges No. 3, 4 and 5 have also been found proved on the basis of proper enquiry and on the basis of sufficient evidence. Charge No.3 has been found proved after examining all the relevant documents to the effect that while sending the case to the Head Quarter, it was not stated by the petitioner that Smt. Kanti Bai and her husband Nohar Singh were beyond the limit of tRDP if their holdings are taken jointly. The finding is based on the basis of sufficient evidence. ln regard to charge No.4, the petitioner has granted undue benefit to Smt. Keja Bai by granting loan on 14/07/1983 and deliberately her husband's name was not written in the documents, but her father’s name was written to extend undue benefit to Smt. Keja Bai. Hence, the charge has been found proved on the basis of sufficient evidence. In respect of charge No.5, the sanction was made for the purpose of repair of an old well. On enquiry, itwas found that the well was not in existence at the given place, but on the adjacent area some excavation was done and that was not a well, as required under the conditions of grant of loan of Rs.4,000/-. (14) The Hon’b!e Supreme Court in the case 0f State of Andhra Pradesh 8. others Vs. S. Sree Rama Rao (Supra ‘1) observed that where there is some evidence, which the authority entrusted with the duty tc hoid the enquiry has accepted and which evidence may reasonabiy support the conclusion that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge, it is not the function of the High Court in a petition for a writ under Article 226 to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence. (1 5) ln the case of Reqionai Manaqer. U.P. SRTC, Etawah and others Vs. Hotilal and another (Supra“) the Hon’bie Supreme Court held thus : “the Court or Tribunal while dealing with the quantum of punishment has to record reasons as to why it is felt that the punishment was not commensurate with the proved charges. As has been highlighted in several cases to which reference has been made above, the scope for interference is very limited and restricted to exceptional cases in the indicated circumstances. Unfortunately, in the present case as the quoted extracts of the High Court’s order would go to show, no reasons whatsoever have been indicated as to why the punishment was considered disproportionate. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision taken to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at. Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. (See Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. V. Crabtree {1974 LCR 120 (NIRC)}. A mere statement that it is disproportionate would not suffice. A party appearing before a court, as to what it is that the court is addressing its mind. lt is not only the amount involved but the mental set-up, the type of duty performed and similar relevant circumstances which go into the decision-making process while considering whether the punishment is proportionate or disproportionate. If the charged employee hold a position of trust whejV i honesty and integrity are inbuilt requirements of functioning, it wouid not be proper to deai with the matter ienientiy. Misconduct in such cases has to be dealt with iron hands. Where the person deals with public money or is engaged in financial transactions or acts in a fiduciary capacity, the highest degree of integrity and trustworthiness is a must and unexceptionable.“ (16) ln the case ofM B.C. ChaturvediVs. Union of India and others (Supra‘) held thus: ;“1 “12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court. When an enquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence. the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The Court! Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/ Tribunal may interfere where the authority heid the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the conclusion or fmding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. if the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonabie person wouid have ever reached, the Court/ Tribunal may interfere with the conciusion or the finding. and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts