w^'^ y--" i' K s ""-"IW l:V't.-^ •i^'l.Tv"UX'^-U -^l,.^, 'mW" QM''W"^WfW-Mr£"-K-f :;]'ABAt-P-DFi:: . :.'• •'•."'""."IBB <. ' • ' • .. 1 W,P. No.^'o<F1 / /20DO Patitioner Respondents t Kamdas Mandal RatFe, S/o Late Shri Bha'gchand Mandal Ratre, aged. aboyt 45years, Cashier inchsrga: Punjab National Bank, Achanak Marg, Bj.laspur- 495 113. ' Versus I.Q^' The Punjab National Bank through its Zonal Manager, 3aiuahar Nagar, Roshanpura, Shopal., 2.0. Punjab^ National Bank through its Regional Manags-E, MediGai Collsga Road, Kach^?i. Choiuk, Raip ur.;>'. WlrSfSS PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226^227 OF.TH_E CONSTITUTION OF INDIA HIGH COURT OF CHHATnSC^RH AT BILASPUR 'l^l^^ls Writ Pctition No. 5071 of2000 Kamdas Mandal Ratpe -Versus- Thc Puujab Nattoiial Saiik & another V-- Pbst fiir order oia.lS' December, 2005. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotn Judge /^ :x-,-^ -«:'^ HIGH COURT OP CHHATTISGARH AT MLASPUR Writ Ptetition No. 5071 of2000 Kamdas Mandal Ratre -Vcrsus- TTic Puajab Natfonal Bank & another Mr. P. S. Koshy, Advocate for fhe petitioner. Mr. Sudhir Affawal, Advocate for the Respondents ORDER (]S December 2005) Bv Justice SatishK. Afinihotri. 1. Tfae pxcsent peti.tioa fikd under Articles 13S> and 227 of fhe Coastitution of India impi^iM flie oidcr dated 24.4.2000 (Annexure P/l) passed by the Repaaal Mans^er of Punjab Natwnal Bank, Raipur ia fhc capacily of Disciplinaiy Authority whcreby a chflrge- sheet for inisappBDpriatiDn of Rs. 40,000/- which aaaounts to grave '"' nusconduct uader fhe provisions of para 19.5 (j) of fhe Bipartite Settleiuent was issued. The undisputed facts in nutshcH are that on 19.1.1987 fhe petltknier white dischargit^ his dutfes as Head Cashicr (officiatu^j in fhe Main Braach at Raipur of Punjab Natioital Baak with his subordinate Cashiers iiamcly Shri Basaat Dalal and late Shri R.B.Sharma caiised shortagc ofRs. 40,000/- in ttte bank by not dcposttmg fhe sainc. Thc P.I.R. of fhc iacident was lodgpd with fhc poBce. The petitioner was placed undcr suspension wiffli inunedjate efect on aecount of above shortajp, pending disciplniaiy piocecdings aiui departmcBtaI enquiry against fhe petitipxier vide oidcr datcd 22.1.1987 (AmaMure P/2). TBe petitioner atong with Bashant Dalalwas pix>se<3Uted for thc ^- •:'':'i:.^?"^"ri'''^^-^S^^: 5. in'i ofifence of crinnmal breach of trust by cleik or sertf^t iinder section 408 read witfa 34 of the Indian Penal Code in Cruamal Case No. 296/97. Tbe Judfcial M^istrate First Class, Raipur vnlc judginent and order dated 20.4. 1999 found the petitioner guiUy for having committed an ofifence i.1ndcr section 408 offhe Indian Penal Code white holxiixig fhat the oflfence uader section 408 ofthe I.P.C. has not been found pnwed against co-accused Basant DalaL Acconinigfy, the pctitioner was. coavicted and sentenced io vadergo rigorous anprisoiunent for a penod of oiie year and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-, in default ofpaymsnt offine amount to fiirther uadeigo rigoraus miprisotunent for a period of6 inoafhs. On thc basis offhe conviction, semce offhc petitionerwas tennniated as pcr the pTovisions ofpara 19.3 (b) affhe Bipartite Setttement dated 10.4.^02, vide order dated 5.7.1999 (AnnexureP/3). Tbe pctitioiicr fital an appeal in the Court of Third Additioital Sesskins Judgc, Raiptir against (tie judgment and order dated 20.4.1999 passed by fhe Judieial Magistrate Pirat Class, Raipur in Crimmal Case No. 296/97. The said appeal was registered in fhe Court ofTTiitd Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur as Crimmal Appeal No. 125/99. The Thud Additioiial Sessions Judge vide judgment and orderdated 25.10.1999 (Axmexzue P/4) afiterhayiag considered aU fhe cwdencc camc to thc conclusion that it was not cstablfahed aiid provcd fhat fhe pctitioncr had conuxutted an offencc of cruainal breach oftrust tmder scction 408 ofthcI.P.C. As such,fhc petttfoner was acquitted fix»ni fhe chaige of offence uiider section 408 of thc I.P.C. Thc judgmcnt aad order passed by the Judicial Magisteate First Class, Raipur was set-asidc and tfac apgeal •was aUowed. 's:- «.»'- .£; '-•-^ 8. The petitioncr fited a representation under the pnwisioiis ofpara 19.3 (d) of the Bipartite Setflement for consaletatton of his casc for rejnstatcinent on fhe basis oftfae acquittal in appeai The respondent/Baiik after having coasalered the applfcatwn ofIfae petitioner reinstated fhe petitfoner in semce vide oider dated 10.4.2000 (Aimexurc P/6). After remstatement fhe respondent Bank issued a chai^e shcet on 24.4.2000 (AiaiexureP/l)fbrfhe saiae ofFcnce of shortage of an amount of Rs. 40,000/- which amounts to serious inisconduct under para 19.5(9 offhe Bqartite Setdement, for which fhe petitionerwas piosecuted in Cruniaal Casc No. 296/97 by fhe Judicial M^istratc, Class-I, Raipur. Thc petitioner has filed fhc present petition challRnging the vaKdity of fhe chaige sheet datcd 24.4.2000 oafhe giound that fhe einplDyer/Respondent-Baak oncc havuig CTercised its powers undcr tfac piovisions of para 19.3 (d) of fhe Bipartite Settlement toy reinstattng fhe pctitioner m semce, the cmplqyer has no power to pToceed dcpartaientelfy agaiast thc petitioncr for fhc saxne cbarge itaderclause II aiul 12. I have heard Shri P. S. Koslq' tean»dcounsel for fhc petitioDfir and Shri Sudlur Agarwal, teamed counsel for the respondcnts. Shri P. S. Koshy, learncd counsel appearing for the pctitioner chaBenged the validity Of the iiapugned ordcr iater aSa. on two gTounds:- That fhc respondent/Bank having exercfaed its power under the pnwisions of para 19.3(d) of the Bipartlte Settletacnt by xeinstating the petitioner in scrvica, tbe impugaed show cause notice Aimcxurc P/l is beyond power and compctence ofthc xiespondent/Bank. B Nif 3iii '^; ..."»s •'>-»-, (i4 The discipUnaiy proceeding couM not have bcen mitiated aftcr a delay of 13 years for the aUegcd incBleat which had takcn place on 19.1.1987. 11. Leamed counsel appeariag for thc respondcnts, pcr contra, subnutted that the petitionerwas acquitted in appcal due to tecluucal fault and as such there vras no bar to iiutiate departmental cnquuy s^aiast thc petitioner. Lcaffled counsel adinitted the applicabflity and biading efiect of the Bipartite Settlement Accoxxling to leamed counsel for fhe respondeats, the scrvice conditions offhe petitioner is govemed by various terms aad coaditions offhe BipartitB Setfleinent 12. I have heard leamed coimsel for the parties at great lengfh, perused the recbrds appended to fhe petition and to the returu filed by fhe respondents. Admittedfy, semcc conditions af fhe pctitioner is govemed by the pDoivisiDns aaentioned ia Bipardte Sctflement between the Indian Banks Association aad AU ladia Baak Einployees Association dated 10.4.2002. Thc relevant provisions ofpaca 19.3 (d) reads as under.- ltt • . ' "tf he prefers aa appeal or revision ^pplication against his conviction and is acquitted, ia case he had atoeady beca dealt wifh as abovc aiid he applies to fhe managcaient for r«»nsiderationof his case, fhe manageinent shaU review his cese and niay either renistate him or pnx»eds^ainst liini under fhe provisions set out below ia Clauses 11 and 12 mfl-a relatmg to dischat^e, and fhe piovision set out above as to pay, aBowanccs and fhe penod of suspension wffl apply, fhe period up-to-date for which full pay and aUowances havc not becn drawn being treated as one of suspension. In the event of'the Tnanagement decidmg, after enqiuiy not to continue hiin in service, fhe eiaployce shaU be liabte onfy for termjnatmn wifh fhree inonfhs' pay and aUowancc in Ueu ofnotice, as directed above." The respondent Bank tenninatcd the scmce ofthc petittoncr under •fhct>rovisions ofpara, 19.3(b) which reads as uiidcr:- i 111"-""-t B^l .S-.S.iSsEiiKl.t-;...,!.^-;..^. •B :K!::i:':\ •^.l:'.-.. _'- - •- _\ ilSBS[ay vpB&aap m -mdSBN fe Aqmog 'anqsaipnr jo vaoQ qftH " sv^ aiojaq uoR.aiapTsuoo japun SBA^uauisinas aiRJedig ixiasad stp.jo (p)e'6l «xsdq^iABuatBm-Kred si iiaiiqA (p) (g) •[gs asn'Bio •sasAoidTng sspieg atp jo euopipaoo aM&ias jo asodind aq^ joj aiqeoiiddB SBA piBAV uiseqg 'i.iiauiai^ag a^pjBdig tuasaid svy. o^ joud -91 •UORCTSfBfasasvceSay joj jauop.t(ad axtt ysvca^SB paaooiid ^OUUBO yiBg/^aapuodsag avy. faavaaifffaQ aipjBdig STp. jo suua^ aip japun qons SB pHB 'oOOB'fr'Ol pa^P japxo spiA aoiiAias ui jaaoR.ti.sd at^ Svayaysaxai Aq uot»do^sjg asiaiaxa af. aasoqo SBq 3preg/i.u3puods3j[ ato 'SSBO ^uasaid aq^ ui •'a.wysB jBfvtavayaaSap vy gi ptie f.1 s3swsp> ui fao ^as suoisiAQid aqt japtm Tinq ^euregB paaooid xo unq aiB^suiaa jaq»ia SBOI pire as?Bo sni MaiAai ^ Ipqs yiavacaSewavs. aip. leaddB UB va •pa^mhse si 3aA>idin3*i.aant)Ut[3p B ji fsvff. sapiAoad jSfxesio (p) e'6I ^red T.asTasiBaS aWIBdIa a^ J0 saua^ 3% Aq paxuaAoS si jauopiiiad aq^jo snoptpuoo aoiAias ^wp JBS[O si fi 'spiBg/^uapuodsai atR Aq pssssd siapiio snouBA sip jo A»aiA ui •31 g'sso[ snouas m spaBq sqi. 3A(OAtii 0^ A[a?[ii jo 8ma[OAtii aoudSi^aa: jo aou^i^au ssaiS jo ipreq sq^jo tsaisyBi aqi. at i8KMpn(aid vse Are Suiop^ -aaptm.SB speai tiapiA txi3Hiai»asaW-iBdTS siBJ0 © S'6T aredjo saoisiAOiid 3q» .ispixn paassi SBM OOOZ"'t.''frZ P3VBP saftou asnBo Moqs panSnduii sqj, ' •QOOe"t''OT pa>Bp -isiuo apiA 66/SSl "ON IBaddv iBapnuo IK lewmbaB jo aouBnsmd m aatiuas ui pa(Bisaiai SBA jauotii^ad aip jagBaiaty, •t'\ "6661 "Z'S uo patB(iniua> SBA .rauoRpad wy.jo aoiAias aqi '6661 •^•oe pa»Bp-lapio 3pi& •0-d-WT 3m ^q "O'd'I aq»jo80t> uoRoag japan ao'uqp> ue joj .lanopiiad aip jo UOROIAUQO atp JD sisBq avp. ao ^•Aio[3q 9 asn^o ui pauoituam sBiuaTuqspindjouuojjassaiATiBiiaAiSaqjoucitpiAuoospijo a(Bp aq^ rsm.g :>oqga IKIM passraisip aq I'em sq 'pai.oiAaoo aq aq ji^ ..a 6 Bi fe. ;'u! ^< 4.-''<: Paadurana Moteashe Vs. Statc Baak of Iiidia and anothcr (1985 II LLJ 145). Lcamed Diyision Bcnch came to fhe conclusioa as under:- "Wc fhink that fhc rule laal down ia para 521(2) (d) of the Sastri Award einpowers fhe einployer to have recourse to a&y offhe two coiuses. The consequence of (he exerdse of fhat course and fhc language adopted, in ozir opmion, ctear^ indicate that conscquence inust be foUowed and the optmos exerciscd at tihc time when any of the actions con.tein.plated is to be talscn. Therefore, in our opinion, when an einployec who has -been dcalt wifh earUer is subsequentty in an appeal fa acquitted and inalses a reptescntation to fhe managcinent for consideBation of his case, thcn it te at fhat tiine tfaat fhe inaaagement upon a icview of his case decide whefher it wffl rcappoint hina or rcmstate hiin or procecd E^ainst Iiun. Having oiice taken a decision, fhe words and fhe sequcnce of the procedurc uuUcated aad fhe langu^e of fhe paxagfaph havc now become fhe terma aad conditfons of the baok einployees, the eiuploycr rcndeis biinsctf poweiiess eifher to alter that dccisk»n or chatigc fhe course and pick up the ofher alteruativc." I am in respcctful agreeaient with fhe obscrvations of thc Divisinn Bench ia' Jeevanoiakash Pandwrane Mokashe's case (suoi'a). Acconlu^ly, I ain offhe.considered opiaion fhat fhe respondent/Bank has no power to take recoursc to sccond option Le. to piocecd against the pctitioner for disciplinaiy actioa after havnig exercised ifs powers to reinstate the pctitionel- on acquittal by fhe appeDate Court ia cruninal appeaL 18. In view of thc abovc stated reasons, it is uot ncGessary to go in.to fhe question as to whether fhe chaige sheet could be issued bclatedly after a pcriod of 13 years froin the date of mcidcnt. 19. Thc petitioncr ia hte pctitioa, fhough, has prayed for grant of aB consequential .benefits ie. diEference of wagps, sciuority and ofher consequeatial benefits in view of acqiiittat of fhe pcy.tiohcr by titie appcllate Court, has not laid any feundation &r grant ofback wages 20. A, and conscquential bcncfits. The petitioner has neifher stated anyttung wifh regard to the back wa^es in fhc pleadings or in fhe grouads nor has filed any documents ia support of hte claiia for graat of back wages. Thus, in absence ofpteadings and documcnts ia support offtK prayer, no order caa be passed for grant ofbackwE^es. For thc reasons stated above, fhe impugaed^charge sheet dated 24.4.2000 (Annexure P/1) is quashed. The petitioa is aBowed. No order as to costs. - Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri l Judge i Thakur ••^. ..-^: i!a