IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 15952 of 2005 Sunitee Kumari Sinha, wife of late Ram Awatar Singh, resident of At & PO – Oriaha, P S – Barhara Kothi, Dist – Purnea - Petitioner Versus 1) Bhojpur Rohtas Gramin Bank through its Chairman having its office at Harkhan Kumar Jain Trust Bhawan Harjika Hata, P S – Nawada Ara, Dist – Bhojpur, Ara 2) The Chairman Cum Disciplinary Authority, Bhojpur Rohtas Gramin Bank, Office at Harkhen Kumar Jain Trust Bhawan Hasriji ka Hata, P S – Nawada, Dist – Bhojpur, Ara 3) Senior Manager, Department of Human Resources Training Manager of Bhojpur Rohtas Gramin Bank having its office at Harkhan Kumar Jain Trust Bhawan Hariji ka Hata, P S – Nawada, Dist – Bhojpur, Ara 4) Punjab National Bank through its Chairman having its office at Bhikajee Cama Place, Parliament Street, New Delhi - Respondents W I T H CWJC No 2752 of 2003 Sunitee Kumari Sinha, wife of late Ram Awatar Singh, resident of At & PO – Oriaha, P S – Barhara Kothi, Dist – Purnea - Petitioner Versus 1) The State of Bihar 2) Bhojpur Rohtas Gramin Bank through its Chairman having its office at Dakshini Ramna Road, Ara 3) Chief Vigilance Officer and General Manager, Incharge of the Personnel and Training Department of the Bank, namely, Fakirchand Banet having its office at Dakshini Ramna Road, Ara 4) Manager, Personnel, namely, Satish Chandra Jha, Bhojpur Rohtas Gramin Bank - Respondents *** For the petitioner : Mr Aditya Nr Singh – I For the B a n k : M/s Prashant Vedasen & Subhash Chandra Bose *** 6 01.07.2009 CWJC No 15952 of 2005 has been filed by the wife of late Ramawtar Singh who died in harness while working as Manager in one of the Branches of Bhojpur Rohtas Gramin Bank. CWJC No 2752 of 2003 was originally filed by the said Ramawtar Singh himself claiming promotion whereas CWJC No 15952 of 2005 was filed, as 2 stated above, by the wife after the death of the said Ramawtar Singh challenging the punishment inflicted on the said Ramawtar Singh because of which he was denied promotion and other benefits. It appears that while husband of the petitioner was Branch Manager in 1985 onwards, the accounts of his Branch were inspected. In course of inspection, a lot of irregularities were found. Details of those irregularities were communicated to the petitioner’s husband and petitioner’s husband was asked to explain the discrepancies and derelictions. On 16.11.1988, petitioner’s husband submitted his explanations. This was considered by the Chairman of the Bank and it was pointed that inspite of repeated warnings, petitioner’s husband continued to act beyond his authority which was not acceptable. However, giving petitioner’s husband warning, an entry in his CR in this regard was made. It appears thereafter the Branch accounts were audited. In course of audit, serious irregularities were found. On basis of these irregularities some of which of the period which were considered earlier, a departmental proceedings was formally initiated. In the departmental proceedings, ultimately charges were framed in the year, 1996. Petitioner’s husband filed his show cause and matter was examined. Enquiry report was then submitted. As per the enquiry report, out of nine charges, two charges were partially found proved, one was not found proved, the rest six charges were found established. The enquiry report, on being submitted, the disciplinary authority accepted the enquiry report and issued notice to the petitioner’s husband to show cause as to why he be not punished in view of the findings of 3 the Enquiry Officer. This letter was issued on 25.04.2001. Petitioner’s husband allegedly sought some papers and, thereafter, did not respond. As such, punishment was imposed by order dated 05.10.2001 whereby he was debarred for being considered for promotion for five years and he was pushed down by sixth annual increment. In the meantime, the petitioner’s husband had filed CWJC No 2752 of 2003 seeking promotion. In the said writ application, petitioner’s husband stated that he was the seniormost in Scale II cadre and while others were called for interview for promotion, he was not called for interview. In the said writ application, he did not state that a departmental proceeding had been initiated against him in which he had been found guilty by order dated 25.04.2001 and he had been issued with a show cause against proposed punishment. Those facts came out in the counter affidavit. That writ application has now virtually become infructuous in view of the fact that punishment has been imposed which, according to the Service Rules, is applicable. This disentitles him for being considered for promotion for five years. The petitioner’s husband then challenged the punishment order by which six increments were withheld with cumulative effect by filing CWJC No 9861 of 2003. The same was disposed of by order dated 23.09.2003 directing the petitioner’s husband to prefer appeal against the said order while condoning the delay in filing the appeal as the punishment order was dated 05.10.2001. Accordingly, petitioner’s husband preferred appeal which was dismissed by a detailed reasoned order dated 22.12.2003 which has now been challenged in CWJC No 15952 of 2005 4 by the wife of the employee. On behalf of petitioner’s husband, it is submitted that once proceedings were initiated against him which concluded in exonerating him in the year 1989, for the same period, fresh disciplinary proceedings could not be initiated on the principle of double jeopardy. It is further submitted that the petitioner’s husband having filed an appeal, the appellate order has not considered all the grounds that he has taken in appeal. Having heard the parties and considered the matter, in my view, these writ petitions do not merit consideration. A reference to the so-called first proceedings would show that it was mere explanation asked for reconciling accounts and as to under what circumstances he had granted various loans and advances beyond his power. No disciplinary proceedings were initiated. On mere explanation received, he was warned. Then there was special audit. In this special audit which also covered the period earlier enquired into, again various serious irregularities were found. They, inter alia, included giving advances beyond the authorisation limits. Petitioner’s husband’s defence was that he had earlier given explanation and he was exonerated. His further defence was that Bank suffered no loss because all advances were duly recovered. This explanation was not accepted and the Enquiry Officer found him guilty on six out of nine counts with two further counts being partially proved and one charge not being proved. This report was accepted by the disciplinary authority and petitioner’s husband was asked to show cause against proposed penalty. 5 Petitioner’s husband demanded certain papers and, thereafter, stopped responding and, as such, penalty order was passed. At this stage, I may first note that in fact the first proceedings was administrative proceeding calling for explanation as to under what circumstances certain advances were given, certain transactions entered. He was not exonerated as submitted by the petitioner’s husband. It was found that there were serious derelictions and, therefore, he was warned. Now in subsequent inspection of records, more irregularities were discovered. This time, a formal departmental disciplinary proceeding was initiated. In these proceedings, petitioner’s husband was found guilty and punished accordingly. Thus, there is no question of double jeopardy. There was only one departmental disciplinary proceeding. The earlier was an only administrative proceeding seeking clarifications with regard to his conduct and the accounts of the Branch. Now we come to the appeal proceedings. The appellate order is Annexure-1. It has noted clearly all the contentions that were raised and has, by an elaborate order, rejected them. Petitioner’s husband’s submission that all his contentions have not been considered is not correct. In matters of disciplinary proceedings, an officer is not to record a detailed judgment when it is affirming an order in appeal. The appellate authority has agreed with the original authority’s order. It has taken note of the criticism of petitioner’s husband to the original order. This Court is not sitting in appeal over the appellate order. The scope of 6 judicial review is limited. Neither any procedural wrong nor judicial impropriety has been shown. On the other hand, it stands admitted that petitioner’s husband had knowingly exceeded his authority in giving loans and advances beyond his authority. It matters little if there was no loss to the Bank. In view of the aforesaid, I am unable to persuade myself to interfere in the matter. Both the writ petitions are, thus, dismissed. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)