IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No. 2371 of 2001 RADHA RAMAN KHAN Versus CHAIRMAN,MITHILA KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK & OTHERS 05- 1.5.2008 Heard Mr. B P Pandey for the petitioner, and Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur for the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner has during the course of his submissions confined the frame of this writ petition to the validity of the order dated 2.2.2001 (Annexure 17), whereby in view of the order of punishment inflicted as a result of departmental proceeding, the petitioner has been debarred for consideration for promotion for a period of three years from the date of the punishment. 2. A brief summary of facts essential for the disposal of the writ petition may be indicated. The petitioner was at the relevant point of time Branch Manager of Khirma Patra branch of the respondent Mithila Kshetriya Gramin Bank, and was a Class I functionary as per the Bank’s Regulations. Charge-sheet dated 22.8.94 (Annexure 5) was served on him. Enquiry report was submitted on 9.1.96 (Annexure G), whereby all the six charges were held to have been proved against him. Second show-cause notice dated 10.1.96 was served on him. He had shown cause by his communication dated 27.5.06 (Annexure H). On a consideration of the materials on record, the learned disciplinary authority passed the order dt. 15.6.99 (Annexure 10), whereby punishment was inflicted on him. In so far as charge no.1 is concerned, the penalty of deprivation of one increment was inflicted. The same punishment was inflicted in so far - 2 - as charge no.2 is concerned. He was warned for the remaining four charges. The petitioner preferred the statutory appeal which was rejected by order 26.8.2000 (Annexure 12).The order of punishment thus attained the finality. 3. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was served with communication dated 7.7.97 (Annexure 3), whereby he was called upon to appear before the interview board for the purpose of promotion on 14.7.97. For some reason or the other, the interview could not take place on 14.7.97, which was followed by the aforesaid order of punishment dt. 15.6.99 (Annexure 10). Invoking Clause 02(a) of the Promotion Policy for Officers, the petitioner was served with the impugned order dated 2.2.2001 (Annexure 17), whereby he has been debarred from consideration for promotion for a period of three years. 4. While assailing the validity of the impugned action, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that withholding increment(s) with non-cumulative effect is a minor penalty and is beyond the scope of operation of rule 2(a). In his submission, therefore, he should have been considered under the second part of Clause 2(a). He next submits that, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, particularly the inordinate time taken in passing the final order on the enquiry report, the period of three years should commence from the date of service of charge-sheet. He next submits that the impugned order dt. 2.2.2001 (Annexure 17) is invalid, inter alia, for the reason that had the interview taken place - 3 - on 14.7.97, he would have been entitled to consideration as per the sealed cover procedure contemplated by rule 02 (b) of the Promotion Policy. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (1998) 7 SCC 84 (Punjab National Bank vs. Kunj Bihari Misra ). 5. Learned counsel for the respondents has supported the impugned action, and fairly submits that he shall be entitled to consideration for promotion after expiry of the period of three years contemplated by rule 02(a) commencing with the date of punishment. He next submits that interview could not take place on 14.7.97 for reasons consideration beyond the control of the respondents and, in any case, no person junior to the petitioner has so far been promoted. He also submits in the same vein that the selection process for the purpose of promotion of such Gramin Bank officers is conducted by an autonomous body created by the Reserve Bank of India whose working is beyond the control of the respondent bank. Learned counsel for the respondents lastly submits that the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Kunj Bihari Misra (supra) is inapplicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case which dealt with a separate issue. 6. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. Rule 30 of the Mithila Kshetria Gramin Bank (Staff Services) Regulations 1980 provides the list of penalties. The relevant portion of the same is reproduced hereinbelow for the facility of quick reference :- - 4 - “30. Penalties (1) Without prejudice to the provisions of other regulations, an officer or employee who commits a breach of these regulations or who displays negligence, inefficiency or indolence, or who knowingly does anything detrimental to the interests of the Bank or in conflict with its instructions or who commits a breach of discipline or is guilty of any other act of misconduct, shall be liable to the following penalties: (a) reprimand; (b)delay or stoppage of increments or promotion; ©degradation to a lower post or grade or to a lower stage in his incremental scale; (d)recovery from pay or the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Bank by the officer or employee; (e)removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment; (f) dismissal. (2) No officer or employee shall be subjected to the Penalties referred to in clause (b), (c), (d), (e) or (f) of sub-regulation (1) except by an order in writing signed by the Chairman and no such order shall be passed without the charge being formulated in writing and given to the said officer or employee so that he shall have reasonable opportunity to answer them in writing or in person, as he prefers and in the latter case his defence shall be taken down in writing and read to him; Provided that the requirements of this sub-regulation may be waived, if the facts on the basis of which action is to be taken have been established in a court of law or court martial or where the officer or employee has absconded or where it is for any other reason impracticable to communicate with him or where there is difficulty in observing them and the requirements can be waived without injustice to him. In every case where all or any of the requirements of this sub-regulation are waived, the reasons for so doing shall be recorded in writing.” It is evident on a plain reading of the Rules extracted above that deprivation of increment with or without non-cumulative effect is a major penalty. The punishment of reprimand is the only punishment in rule 30 which has been treated to be a minor penalty. As stated - 5 - hereinabove, the petitioner has been visited with the punishment of deprivation of one increment with non-cumulative effect each for the first two charges. It is thus manifest that the petitioner is covered by the first charge of rule 02 (a). He cannot, therefore, be considered for promotion for a period of three years from the date the penalty was inflicted. 7. In so far as the petitioner’s second grievance is concerned, it appears on the face of it that the respondent authorities took a little more than the needed time to pass the final order on the enquiry report. But the attending and the surrounding circumstances indicate that the same cannot be allowed to operate against the respondent Bank. The petitioner was, perhaps, not under suspension during this period. He, therefore, did not suffer on account of deprivation of salary beyond the subsistence allowance. Secondly, no person junior to the petitioner was considered for promotion till the impugned order dated 2.2.2001 (Annexure 17) was passed. In such a situation, neither the apparent delay in passing the final order can be allowed to operate against the respondent bank nor the sealed cover procedure engrafted in rule 02 (b) of the Promotion Policy is was required to be followed. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent bank has fairly submitted that the petitioner’s case for promotion shall be considered in accordance with law after the expiry of a period of three years commencing from the date of the order of punishment. 9. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in - 6 - this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. ( S K Katriar ) mrl.