BB lip-^"1 w •sas ss^a^(xmKs xss wexBK.^aaasm ^s .s^sKisvs^ . :.--HJbs®»';-»elE^t4iWt .)«®:*i:.-'5^94 . @S. :1989 ,, : • - SETITIONER Girisb Ghandra TrlvedA* sea e£ B»B* Triwedi^ atfed about34 year, r/o care ef ShrS ttadaa Bubey, High Seheol Resd» ti'agdalpur^ versus RESBONSENTS — l. Basfear KsbefcrAya Sramla Bank threugb Ats Qialrnaa, Jsgdalpur, Bistriefe Bastar» M.P» 2. Beard o£ DireGfeors tTarough tfae CSia.lrmaa, Bastar Kstiatxiya Sram.iB Banls» 3'agQalpur, Bastar, M.P. PETITIQN _^DER _ABTlei.BS 226 R/W JUlTXCTtE 227 OF ^HB eeHSTXTBTXOS ®P XSBI&* fr i'l.ll J3tppTI8 S? spTeg maiBioBA^aqs}! .RqsBg si.uapaodsaa sns-iSA tpaAUj, BlpOBq3 qsuiQ J3aOT|.It3|j 6861 jo frOTS •OAI -d'A ifii 811 UM1IU§V•31 qsHBg .-/PS 'QOQKt'V-'BVl^.h ao-iapaojg: ^soj 'y'f andsviia Zv HavosijAVHHO do jbanoo HOIH ^iiW^gsS-'WSS^s^f iiS":B'"l*8S t> ilEL;i iti'ii ;|-:sS HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. No. 5104 of 1989 Petitioner Girish Chandra Trivedi Versus Respondeats Bastar Kshetnya Gramici Bank & anafher Sia^le Bench; Hon'ble Mr. Justice Satish K. Agnihotrl. Shri N. S. Kale, Senior Advocate with Shri Abhishek Siuha, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri PrafuU Bhara.t, Advocate for the Respondents. ORDER ( March, 2006) The foUcn'ring order offhe Court was passed by Satish K. Agnlhotri, J. 1. The Bastar Kshetriya Gramin Baak (for short 'the Baak') is a joint venture of the Central Goveniinent aad State Goveminent aad afSUated by the State Baiik of India. The petitioner was employed by fhe respondent-Bank as Branch Manager on 22.6.1981 aad posted at Sambalpiu- Branch. The petitioner was subsequently transferred to Sonarpal Branch in the sam.e official capacity in Tahsil aud District- Jagdalpur(Bastei^. It is alleged fhat during his tenure as Branch Maaager at Branch Sanibhalpur as well as at Sonarpal, fhe petitioner bas committEd several grave irregularities aad misused his official capacity, so as to cause loss to the respondent-Bauk. 2. The petitioner was issued a show cause notice on 21.9.1985 (Annexure A) relating to his posting at Sambhalpur Braach wifh regard to the irregularities coiumitted by him, which^gce as under:- ^ 3. a) The petitioner advan.ced loan to 38 persons who were neifher residents of fhe viUages mentioned in. the docuinents nor were they ever residuig in fhe vfflages. b) Loans advanced to 19 persons were found fictitious asSaid 19 persons reported in writing fhat they had never taken any loaa from the Bank. cj The petitioner inade an. entry ofdeposit of Rs. 700/- on 07.07.1982 ui the pass book of one account holder Dharmu Raia. However, fhere was no mention of such deposit ia the accouat book of fhe Bsnk. Thus, the petitioner has obtained the said anioiint biit did not deposit in the Bank. d) The petitioaer m.ade an. entiy ofdeposit of Rs. 100/- in the ledger sheet of fhe Bank and pass book of Kamlesh Kuinar Tiwari on 7/8.9. 1983 but it was not raentioned in the dafly transaction register and the cashier receipt payinent register. Th.us, fhe petitioner, haviag obtaiaed the saM amouiit failed to deposit in fhe Bank. e) The petitioner had withdrawn aa ataount of Rs. 230/- from his own bank account on 15.10.83 when the actual balance in the said account was Rs. 157.54 and thus an over draft ofRs. 100/- ought to have been shown. To avoid over draft thc petitioner made inanipulations in tiie entdes by maldng the figure of Rs. 230/- as Rs. 130/- aad replaced the withdrawal voucher by a new one of Rs. 130}- and tb.us inisappropriated aa aiaount of Rs. 100/-, during the period 15.10.1983 to 30.11.1983. 1) The petitioner exceeded his discretionary powers as Bran.ch Mauager by granfing loans uaore than his limit for sanction and disburse of the loau ainonnt, thus inisused his powers. The petitioner was issued one inore cbaige sheet dated 23.9.1985(Annexure B) for having coininitted serious I.L.Jt li _ li.ti"1T!iilJ(fB(t]^:!i!i:^__j_ irregularities during his posting as Braach Manager at Sonarpal Branch to the following effect- (a) That on iiispection of fhe Branch, an amount of Rs. 100/- was found short on 10.04.85, which was admitted by the petitioner and to inake good fhe deficit, he subnutted withdrawal form of Rs. 100/-, entiy which was made ia the tauisaction register axid cashier receipt payinent register. However, on uispection on 14.4.85, it was found that fhe entries were altered and iastead of the name of fhe petitioner, the name ., of one R.K. Gupta was written. Thus, he altered entries and inanipulated Baak records in order to inake iip fhe deficit. (b)That oa inspection on 17.4.85 a slip was found in the drawer of the petitioner's table containing the aames of eight persons fbr an aaiount of Rs. 40/-. On enquiry, the petitioner iafoniied that he had received fhe aniount for fhe purpose of purchasuig stamps for borrowers. However, fhe atnount was not deposited in the stamps account. This act of the petitioaer amounted to iUegatty holding fhe amount with 1iim contiary to the Bank regulations. (c) That, alfhough loans were granted on 10.4.85 ia nine accounts but as on the date of inspection, no docuiaents were got executed froiu fhe concemed persons, whrch fact was admitted by liim. (d)That the Bank records showed disbllisement of loans to five persons on 24.1.85 and 25. l.85 but on verification it was found fhat those persons were not residing in the vfllagc mentioned in the records and fhat they never resided there. Four ofthese accounts were closed after full and final payinent and in one account, the amount was deposited m Inmp sum. Thus the petitioner 3 V- 6. sanctioned fhe loans in names of fictitious pei^ons aad nusappropriated fhe aaiotuit. Accordiagly, total 10 chai^es were levelled against the petitioner. One Shri Gajaaan Prasad Pandey was appointed as Enquiiy OfScer and Shri Meghraj Pafhak was appoiated as Presenting Officer. The enquiry was concluded on 19.10.1986 saad the report was submitted by the enquuy officer on 6.12.1987 to fhe discipluiaiy authority. The discipluiary authority vide order dated 23. 12.1987 pioposed fhe puaishmeht on the petitioner, The petitioner submitted his reply on 18.3.1988. After considering the reply offhe petitioner aad havuig affoided an opportunity of personal heanng to fhe petitioner, fh.e disciplinary aufhority passed fhe fiaal order dated 12.5.1988 (Annexure f) unposing the puaishinent of disinissal froia Banks service as at fhe close of Busiaess on 12.5.88 without notice which shall bc a disqualification for future einployinent. Thereafter, the petitioner subnutted statutoiy appeal under Section 32 of the Bank Regulatioiis agamst the order dated 12.5.1988 passed by fhe disciplinary authorily, to fhe Board of Dircctors ofthe BaiA. Vide cominunicatton dated 21.9.1989 it was mformed to the petitioner that the Board of Dircctors had discussed the points involved in the appeal, in detail in its itteetuig dated 20.9.1989 smd accordingly the appeal was dismissed. The petitioner has averred iu. the petition fhat the petitioner has been inade a scapegoat witli the help of one Shri Nanideo, Braach Manager, Sambalpur and Shri Pawar, Branch Man^er, N 1i:l 1 .>-- 7. Sonarpal at the relevant time by the fhen Chauinaa of fhe Bank Shri R. P. Bose. Shri R. P. Bose had a grudge agaiust the petitioner, who was an active member of the Uiuon. Shri Bose had refused to give recognition to fhe Uaion of which the petitioner was the active ineiaber. In fhis connection, several hot-discussions had taken place between fhe petitioner and Shri R. P. Bose. In fhe personal heariag also, given to the petitioner on 7.5.1988, Shri R. K. Bose had threatened the petitioner that he would disiuiss Tiim fix>ni service. A false case has been engiaeered agauist the petitioner. The order of disinissal is Diala&de and arbitraiy and ia liable to be quashed. The petitioner has also subinitted that Shri G. P. Pandey, enquiiy officer was junior to the petitioner as ttie petitioner was confirmed earlier to Shri Pasdey, as such Shri F^ndey could not have been appointed as enquiry officer in violatiou. of fhe Staff Regulation 13(3), which provides that ia the case ofaa officer or eniployee whose probation has been extended, his seniority shaU be reckoned just below all the officers or eiuployees, if any, recruited or proinoted ia the same batch along with hun. Leamed coiinsel appearmg for ttie petitioner subinitted, additionaUy, that the petitioner was not pennitted to exanune certaiu documents aad fhe same was denied on fhe ground that fhe said documents have been seized by fhe State Econoinic Crune Investigation Bureau (for short 'Bureau^, and as such, the petitioner was not afforded proper hearing, and fhe entire proccedings ofttie Departinental Enquiry was vitiated. Shri Prafull Bharat, leamed counsel appearing for the respondents-Baak, in reply subinitted that fhe petitioner has l»r 9. admitted irregularities cominitted by him. to the effect fhat while graiituig loans to 38 persons he had not visited fhe spot and had not madc the enquiries from. fhe proposed borrowers. The deUnquent ofiicer has adinitted his guflt aud promised not to repeat the same in future. The petitioner has failed to conipfy witti fhe Banking Riiles for grant ofloans, makuig entries iu the bEUik documents, fonn of wifhdrawal of inoney etc. A detailed enquiry was conducted. The petitioner was granted fuU opportunily by providing inspection of atl the docuiaents except one or two d«?cuineatswhich were not in possession offhe Bank itself, as fhe saine was seized by fhe Bureau. Leamed counsel further siibmitted fhat this Court while exercising extraordiaaiy jiuisdiction under Article 226/227 of fhe Constitution of India should not sit as an appellate Coiirt. There is sufficient evidence to establish the charges against fh.e petitioner. In reganl to the enquiry ofSainbalpur Braach, out of six char^es, charge No. 1, 2, 5 and 6 have been proved and remainuig chai^cs 3 and 4 have not been found proved by fhe enquiiy ofBcer. In regard to fhe u-regularities committed at Sonarpal Branch, atl the chaiges have been. found proved. Leamed couusel for the respondents has subinitted that it is absolutely incorrect to say fhat Shri Ftotdey was junior to fhe petitioner va. fhe cadre of officers. As provided in para 13 (3) Chapter-III of stafif Regulations, it is the seniority assigned at fh.e time of selection which prevsuls aH fhrough iu the cadre aad not fhe date of confirmation, and refen-ed to the seniority Ust (Annexure R/25) wheiein. Shri Pandey has been placed senior to the petitioner. The petitioner did not isise any objectiou as to <s 3 > 10. tlie appointmeut of Shri Pandey before conim.enceinent of and duriag the enquiry also. He is, fherefore, estopped froin chatlenging fhe aufhority of Shri Paadey to hold enquiry agaiast him. In support of this contention, leamed counsel for the respondents relied on the decision of Siipienie Court in Paakajesh Vs. Tulsi Gramin Baak & aaother (AIR 1997 SC 2654] wherein in para 6 fhe Supreine Court held as unden- "6. Thus an. enquiry, under the Regulation inay be delegated to a person higher ia rank than fhe deluiquent ofBcer, ia the case of aa ofiBcer. But ia fhis case we do not find any substantial miscarriage ofjustice prejudicial to the petitioner for the reason fhat fhough it is ahvays desirable tfaat an ofGcer higher in raak than the delinquent ofScer should be directed to conduct an enquiiy, the enquiry is conducted as a delegate of fhe disciplinary authority. Therefore, the ultimate decision is to be taken by fhe discipUnaiy authority. By niere delegating fhe enquiry whether fhe enquiiy of&cer is of the same cadre or of higher grade thaa fhat of the petitioner, it did not cause any inaterial uTCgularity nor resulted in any nijusti.cc to the petitioner. Under these circumstaaces, we do not find aay Ulegality warraating interfcrence." I have heard Shri N. S. Kale, leamed Senior coiuisel wifh Shri Abhishek Siaha, leamed counsel for fhe petitioner aad Shri Prafiitl Bharat, leamed counsel for the respondent and perused ttie documents aanexed to ttie petition aad tiie reply filed by fhe Bank. ».-. ^ > 11. The averments made iu the petition with regard to the allegations against sonie ofBcers are ipse-dcdt. The avennents are vague and unsupported by any dociuaeut/evidence, This is uot a case where findings recorded by fhe enquiry ofScer are based on no evidence or on nnreUable evidence. The enquiiy officer has examined aU the aspects in detail. The petitioner was given fuU opportunity of hearing by prodiicing his case aad examimng and cross-examining the witnesses and docunients produccd by the Baak and as such it cannot be held that there was any peryersity or infinnity ia the euquiry report. The disciplinaiy authorily after haviag pnivided second oppoitunity before imposiag punishinent after subiuissioa of the enquiry report has conipUed wifh fhe principles of natural justice. The petitioner had ffled a statutoiy appeal also before the Board of Directors. The Board of Directors agreed witii fhe findiugs of the enquiry of5cer aud upheld the punishnient unposed by the disciplinary authority. 12. It is not proved fhat the enquiiy officer was junior to fhe deUnqueut ofiicer and the ofBcer who is froin the same bateh caa be appoiiited as enquiry officer. 13. The eriquuy report has been iipheld by the disciplinaiy aufhority as weU as by fhe appeUate authority. This Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Ardcle 226/227 of fhe Constitution of India should not uiteriere and re-appreciate the evidence aad coiae to a difFerent conclusion which inay also be one ofprobable conclusions. 14. The Supreme Court iu Go^t. of T.K. and others Vs. 8. Vel Ks^ ( (1997) 2 S.C.C. 708 } has held that "the finding recorded by ^5 \>r the Enquuy OfBcer and confirmed by the appeUate aufhority were based upon the evidence led during the enquuy and it was not even contended that the said findings •were perverse. It was, fherefore, uot open to the Tribiinal to record contraiy fiaduigs aad hold that the charge against fhe respondent was not proved. 15. The Supreine Court in the case of Kuldeep Siagii Vs. Commissioaer ofPolice aad others { (1999) 2 S.C.C. 10} held as iinder :- "9. NomiaUy the High Court and this Court would not interfere wifh fhe findin.gs of fact recorded at fhe doinestic enquiry but ifthe finding of*giulf is based on uo evidence, it would be peryerse finduig and would be ainenable to judicial scrutiny. 10. A broad distkiction has, fherefore, to be inaintained between fhe decisions which are peryerse and those which are not If a decision is arrived at on no evidence or evidence which is thoroughly iinreliable and no reasonable person would act upon it, the orderwould be perverse. But iffhere is sorue cvidence on record which fa acceptable and which would be reUed upon, howsoever coinpendious it inay be, the - concllisions woiild not be treated as perverse aad the fiadings would not be uiterfered wifh". 16. The another case ofYoginath Bagde Vs. State of Maharashtra asd aaother, { (1999) 7 SCC 739$ , the Supreme Court after considering the earlier decisions held as under :- a51.........The law is weU setfled that if fhe findings are perverse and are not supported by evidence oa record or the findings recorded at the doinestic trial are such to which no reasonable peison would have reached, it would be open to the High Court as also to this Court to iaterfere in thc 10 t *>- 17. la.atter, lu Kuldeep v. Cominr. of PoUce fhis Court, refying upon fhe earlier decisions in. Nand Kishore Piasad v. State of Bfliar, Slate of Andlu-a Piadesh v. Rama Rao, Central Batik of India Ltd. v. Prakash Chaad Jam, Bharat Iron Works v. Bhagubhai Balubhai Patel as also Rajinder Kuiuar Kindra v. DeUu Adnin. laid down that alfhough the court cannot sit in appeal over fhe findiags recorded by the discipluiary authority or the enqiuiy of&cer ia a departm.ental enquiiy, it does not nieaa that in no circuiastaace can the court iaterfere. It was observed that fhe power of judicial review available to a High Court as also to tiais Court under fhe Constitution takes in its stride the doinestic enquiry as weU and the courts caa interfere with the conclusions reached. fherein if there was no evidence to support fhe findings or the findings recorded were such as coiild not have been reached by an ordmary prudent rn.an or the findings were perverse^. In case of B.C. Chatur'redi Vs. Union of India aad others {(1995) 6 SCC 749} held as v.nder.- 12. Judicial review is not an appeal 'froin a decision but a review of fhe manner in which the decision is inade. Power ofjiidicial review is ineant to ensure fhat fhe individual receives fair treatinent and not to ensure that fhe conclusion which the aufhority reaches is necessarily correct in fhe eye of the Court. When aa enquiiy is condiicted on chai^es of misconduct by a public servant, fhe Cozirt/Tribunal is concemed to determiae whether the inquiry was held 11 v./t / 18. by a competeat officcr or whether rules of natural justice are coinpUed with. Whether the findiags or conclusions are based on soine evidence, the aufhority entrusted with the power to hold iaquiiy has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that fuiding iniist be based on some evidence. Neither fhe technical niles ofBvidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined fhereia, apply to discipUnaxy proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusioa receives support fherefroin, fhe discipUnary authorily is eatifled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the chai^e, The Court/Tribiuial ia its power ofjudicial review does not act as appeUate auftiorily to reappieciate the evidence and to arrive at its own uidependent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against fhe deUnqiient ofEcer in a inanner uiconsistent with fhe rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the inode of inqiuiy or where fhe conclusion or finding reached by fhe disciplinaty aufhority is based on ao evidence. Iffhe conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may uiterfere vnfh the conclusion or the finding, and mould the reUef so as to make it appropriate to fhe facts ofeach case . In another latest decision, fhe Supreine Court ui V. Ramana Vs. A.P. SRTC aad others { (2005) 7 SCC 338 } held as uuder :- \ \ 12 11. The coininon thread running fhrough in aU these decisions is fhat fhe court should not interfere wifh the adininistrator's decision unless it was fflogical or siiffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience of the court, ui fhe sense that it was in defiaace of logic or nioial standards. In view ofwhat has been stated in Wednesbury case the court wonld not go into fhe correctness of fhe choice inade by fhe adiauustrator open to him and the court should not substitute its decision for fhat of the adininistrator. The scope ofjudicial review is lunited to fhe deficiency in decision-iaaking process and not the decision". 19. In fhe present case the aUegations have been estabUshed on fhe basis of siifiicieat evidences which a reasouable person, acting reasonably and with objectivily niay amve at a finding of holduig fhe charges agauist fhe deluiqiient officer. I have not found that aay char^e has been proved on the basis of no evideace or unreliable evidence or inere conjunctures and siinnises. 20. In fhe facts and circunistaaces of the case and apptyiag the well settled principles of law laid down by fhe Supreme Coiu-t in vanous decisions cited above, it does not warraat interference with the findings recorded by the enquiry ofiBcer and the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority aad npheld by the appeUate aufhority, in tfae present proceediag. 21. In the rcsult, the petition fails and is dismissed. No orier as to costs. Satish' K. Aa»sSiolrs Judge