\ (xv‘vn kWW\+w/~ mmvx “MN ‘ V ;a {A‘ ‘M%” f2 IN THE HIGH CI)URT OF fW‘xDFYA Pi'WEESHg J‘MBALPUR Ed‘x'i-SC. PKX‘H‘ IGN NS. g ll _/ 3 Anil Gilurkerj aged 34 years s/o Shri $.M. Silurkera cccupation servicér1:e$ident of‘ Quarter’wo. L.I.G. 41? Sector I? Shanker Nagar¢ Raipur. P El" I? ICNER V $. RESPCM? ENT S ... l. Bilaspur Rainur Kchhetriya Gramin Bank"through Chairman, Héad Office Dayalbanda Bilaspur. 2. Board cf Eirgctors, Bilaspur Raipur Kchhetriya Gramin Bank, ta:ough Chairman: Dayalband4 Bilaspur. PETLI’H‘ UN}; 1 AVE. 226 OI THE CVNsT 1Tb? r' N OI‘ INDIA -_. V m PETITIONER .x WRIT PETITION NQ. 512 of 1993 Anil Gilurker. VERSUS Bilaspur Raipur Kchhetriya Gramin Bnk & nother. M Post for pronouncement ofjudgment on .23 .day ofFebruary, 201 RJ ¥\ * Sdl- Satish K. Agnihotri udge 920/02/2010 J HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR RESPONDENTS a a 0. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR , ‘ ‘P a WRIT PETITION No. 512 of 1993 PETITIONER Anil Gilurker. VERSUS Bilaspur Raipur Kchhetriya Gramin Bank & another. ESPONDENTS Present : Shri Shri P.K.Verma, Rajeev Shrivastava, Senior A Advocate for the petitioner. Advocate for the respondents. dvocate with Shri Surnit Verma, JUDGMENT R .. «5% R made in paper only. Thus, the petitioner has committed misconduct in order to derive benefits and as such, the conduct of the petitioner amounts to misconduct under the provisions of Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank (Staff Service Regulations) , 1980 (for short ‘the Regulations, 1980’). The petitioner submitted his reply on 11.02.1989 (Annexure P/3) denying all the allegations. One Shri J.K.Sharma, was appointed as Enquiry Officer on 31.3.1989 and Shri J.K.Shukla, Senior Manager, Head Office, Bilaspur was appointed as Bank’s representative. The presenting officer submitted a list of 11 Witnesses on 14.10.1989 (Annexure P/S). One Shri D.P.Pathak, Cashier cum Accountant was examined. The Presenting Officer produced certain loan cases and as such, enquiry was completed. The Enquiry Officer, Vide his report dated 23.01.1991 (Annexure P/ll) came to the conclusion that no documents have been produced and no witnesses have been examined in respect of financial corruption as alleged against the petitioner. Thus, the charges of financial corruption was not found proved. 3. Disagreeing with the finding of the Enquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority issued a‘show-cause—notice dated 10.09.1991 (Annexure P/9) proposing penalty of removal from service. The petitioner denying all the allegations, submitted his reply on 18.09.1991 (Annexure P/12) stating that out of 11 witnesses cited in the lists of witnesses, only one witness namely Ratanlal was examined and the petitioner was not given extraneous materials which led the Disciplinary Authority to take a contrary View other than that of the Enquiry Officer. The imposition of punishment of removal from services was passed on 25.11.1991 (Annexure P/13). The appellate authority i.e. the Board of Directors, .\\ war. dlsmlssed the appeal and canfmned the order passed by the D1s01phnary Authonty, on 26.11.1992 (Annexure P/16). Thus, this petltlon. Shri Rajiv Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the charge sheet served on the petitioner was vague as it does not specify any case or any incident Wherefrom the authorities have come to the conclusion that there was financial irregularities as stated in the vague charge sheet. Thus, it was not possible for the petitioner t0 defend himself on the basis of vague charges Production of certam documents and examlnatlon of certam Witnesses durlng the enquiry has prejudiced the case 0fthe petitioner Secondly the petitioner was not supplied list of documents or the list of Witnesses alongWith the charge sheet Thus the same amounts to opportunity ofhearing ought to have been afforded to the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority, but the same was not done in the present case. Thus, imposition ’of penalty of removal from service is bad and vitiated. The same deserves to be quashed with consequential relief of reinstatement in service with full backwages On the other hand Shri P K Verma, learned Senior counsel appearing With Shri Suinit Veima learned counsel for the respondent—Bank would submit that the petitioner was given full opportunity of adducing evidence and cross examining the witnesses. Admittedly, no list of documents and witnesses were supplied alongwith the charge sheet. However, there is no provision under the Regulations, 1980 to \\ supply list of witnesses or the list of documents alongwith the charge \\ \\ \ \ sheet. The charges are neither vague nor baseless. The Disciplinary Authority is fully competent to take a contrary View and pass appropriate orders. Thus, the order of removal from service is just and proper. The petitioner had full opportunity of presenting his case before the appellate authority also. Thus, at this stage, the petitioner cannot be permitted to raise the issue of violation of principles of natural justice. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto, there is no dispute that the Disciplinary Authority has not agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer. The notice dated 10.09.1991 (Annexure P/9) does not clearly states that the petitioner is to respond t0‘the show cause of charges levelled against the petitioner as the Disciplinary Authority had taken a contrary stand particularly in view of the fact that the Enquiry Officer had not found allegations of financial corruption proved. The order dated 10.09.1991 which appears to have been annexed with the notice dated 10.09.1991 (Annexure P/9) gives the same facts about the allegation of charges. The notice specifically indicates that why punishment of removal from service may not be imposed on the petitioner. The petitioner has replied to the said notice in detail stating that reliance of the evidence of Vimla Bai, Chetan Lal Gond, Milvantin and Ratan Lal cannot be accepted as only Ratanl’al was examined by the prosecution. Other borrowers were not examined by the Disciplinary Authority and the petitioner was also not afforded opportunity to cross examine them. 17 borrowers have given \\ combined statement and their statement was not subjected to scrutiny. ‘7 \z The decision taken by the Disciplinary Aiithority was passed on false and fabricated documents. 7. On perusal of the charge sheet, there is no mention of any specific document or mention of the name of persons Who had not been given loan but the papers indicated that they have been given loans. The charge sheet reads as under: “(parting—{musinfaneims'eQiw emnl'na’ieaiahahanmawngnw mmnwmn§awur$m WWII mammmamim$em1fa mamwmwwnm W awn 1i awn new amt W w WWWWWWW Knmwnmmmwmgq mmmwms’twfaaazmaini WWawatqmnngwwW $WWI¥WW€$¥WW WWW'$W$maW seamehlmwegawmmd wnmwW$§awa§w £1 aim W $ m and aw WWwmwniésl a‘eWmlWWW’WW W$¥$1Rl$mmmmmw mgmmgqmmm W§,W§$,WH'WW$% nnmvmmqgana§w€t§$ahw% «henna—gselmu‘eagraardwq'a WW$W1119W3M$$3€W W€W Thus, I have no hesitation in holding that the charge sheet was vague as there were no specific charges. 8. The final order of removal from service does not disclose as to whether there was consideration of the reply of the petitioner or not. There is also no dispute that the Board of Directors without considering all the facts, dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and affirmed the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. The relevant \ portion of the said order dated 10.09.1991, reads as under: \x J1 \, L’. This Court, in Durgesh Pasad Sinha v. State 0f Chhattisgarh & Others], While dealing with the word ‘shoW cause notice” observed as under: \ \ X "$W%mQimi¥ag $%W%%B%W?HWHWW W Ta‘T W, 613% ET? amimé‘f a} W@a§uwm%%$w- WW8§umwm$W$m mm -§§I’HW$W@WH§ €%$WWWWWW WW@W§H‘§I§W|$&W%§$ $W$WWWWWW #mWwrwwmmmm H'H'WWWW W@an'\h¥ @WWI¢W#HW§$$ Wwmm.m§$a%ww Wwu€a§$%ma§iwam%w WEWWEQ§$$TWI§E®aam mawi‘z§§mwagvw ma%#$w éw§§§#m wWW§$ww§EWW a%am3o(1)a%aia1fa&11W$‘rHW §$ aft W 1% 11% (Removal From Service) WWW§$méiWaeuT§€e we 1¥ 1%? 1w 2mm?! (Bank Contribution) WWWWWW§l mqgq‘1%§wqmi¥erfmmw qrRam€.%TWa7‘rii%m€wQ€ia‘fa W$Umw$wqfnm§qm W$Hmwmw%?mfna% WW§WWWI" @ “11. ‘Show cause notice’ implies opportunity of submitting an explanation to a clear unambiguous notice. Thus, in the facts of the case an information was brought in the knowledge of the petitioners without giving show cause notice to file response to prove genuineness or bonafide of documents. " 10. In Swath Chandra Chakrabarthy v. State 0f West Behgalz, the Supreme Court, observed as under: 09 decided on 7.8.2009 x, A '27/4/ “5. The grounds on which it is proposed to take action have to be reduced to the form of a definite charge or charges which have to be communicated to the person charged together With a statement of the allegations on which each charge is based and any other circumstance which it is proposed to be taken into consideration in passing orders has also to be stated. This rule embodies a principle which is one of the basic contents of a reasonable or adequate opportunity for defending oneself. If a person is not told clearlyand definitely What the allegations are on which the charges preferred against him are founded he cannot possibly, by projecting his own imagination, diSCover all the facts and circumstances that may be in the contemplation of the authorities to be established against him.” ll. In Sawai Singh v. State ofRajaSthan3, the Supreme Court observed as under: “l4. Quite apart from that fact, it appears to us that the charges were vague and it was difficult to meet the charges fairly by any accused. Evidence adduced was perfunctory and did not at all bring home the guilt of the accused. 15. Shri B.D. Sharma, learned advocate for the respondent, contended that no allegations had been made. before the enquiry officer or before the High Court, that the charges were vague. In fact the appellant had participated in the enquiry. That does not by itself exonerate the department to bring home the charges. 16. It has been observed by this Court in Surath Chandra Chakrabargz v. State of 'W.B. that charges involving consequences of termination of service must be specific, though a departmental enquiry is not like a criminal trial as was noted by this Court in the case of State 0fA.P. v. S. Sree Rama Rao and as such there is no such rule that an offence is not established unless it is proved beyond doubt. But in a departmental enquiry entailing consequences like loss of job which nowadays means loss of livelihood, there must be fair play in action; in respect of an order involving adverse or penal consequences against an employee, there must be investigations to the charges consistent with the requirement of the situation inv accordance with the principles of natural justice insofar as these are applicable in a particular situation.” l2. The Supreme Court, in Union of India & Others v. Gyan Chand Chattar4, observed as under: “27. . .Where a delinquent is served a charge-sheet without giving specific and definite charge and no statement of allegation is served alongwith the charge-sheet, the enquiry stands vitiated as having been conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice.” l3. In Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Mishra5, the Supreme Court observed as under: “l7. These observations are clearly in tune with the observations in Bimal Kumar Pandit case8 quoted earlier and would be applicable at the first stage itself. The aforesaid passages clearly bring out the necessity of the authority which is to finally record an adverse finding to give a hearing to the delinquent officer. If the enquiry officer had given an adverse finding, as per Karunakar case4 the first stage required an opportunity to be given to the employee to represent to the disciplinary authority, even when an earlier opportunity had been granted to them by the enquiry officer. It will not stand to reason that when the finding in favour of the delinquent officers is proposed to be overturned by the disciplinary authority then no opportunity should be granted. The first stage of the enquiry is not completed till the disciplinary authority has recorded its findings. The principles of natural justice would demand that the authority which proposes to decide against the delinquent officer ' must give him a hearing. When the enquiring officer holds the charges to be proved, then that report has to be given to the delinquent officer who can make a representation before the disciplinary authority takes further action which may be prejudicial to the delinquent officer. When, like in the present case, the enquiry report is in favour of the delinquent officer but the disciplinary authority proposes to differ with suchv conclusions, then that authority which is deciding v " 2001 5 (199 the claim of the petitioner for arrears of sa 1 8. lary. It is directed that: I9. 20. Resultantly, the Writ petition is allowed to the above extent. There shall be no order asto costs, Sdl ‘ ‘ Satish K. Agmhotn Judge ox (1995) 2 scc 474