IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6454 of 2003 Bishwambhar Thakur, Son of Shri Kamleshwar Thakur, resident of village- Mathurapur, P.S.-Siho, District-Muzaffarpur. -Petitioner. VERSUS 1. The Vaishali Kshetriya Gramin Bank, through its Chairman, having its Head Quarter at Kalambagh Road, Muzaffarpur. 2. The Chairman, Vaishali Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Kalambagh Road, Muzaffarpur. 3. The Chairman-cum-Disciplinary Authority, Vaishali Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Muzaffarpur. 4. The Enquiry Officer-cum-Branch Manager, Head Office, Vaishali Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Muzaffarpur. 5. The General Manager, Vaishali Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Muzaffarpur. 6. The Branch Manager, Musahari Branch, Vaishali Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Muzaffarpur. -Respondents. ********* Counsel for the Petitioner : Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, Sr. Adv. Counsel for the Bank : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, Adv. ********* 05 02.07.2009 The petitioner was Cashier-cum-Clerk of Vaishali Kshetriya Gramin Bank at Mushari Branch in the district of Muzaffarpur. On the fateful day he was required to bring cash from the Central Bank of India, Amgola Branch, Muzaffarpur to his branch. As he had only a bicycle with him he went on his bicycle as is usual and took cash of Rs. 1 lac. On his way, the rear wheel of the bicycle got stuck and while he was trying to get the same repair someone walked up with the bag of cash. He immediately reported the matter to the Police and the authorities. When the authorities got this information they appraised of the incident and started disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner basically with two charges. He was negligent in carrying 2 cash of the bank on the bicycle and leaving it on unattended thus causing loss to the bank. The second charge was that he did so in contravention of bank’s circulars. Before the Inquiry Officer evidences were laid, who held the petitioner guilty of the negligence and causing loss, but held that the charge of violating bank’s circular was not substantiated. Based on this report petitioner was noticed, report accepted and then petitioner was noticed and punishment imposed. The punishment was withholding of two increments for five years and recovery of a sum of Rs. 1 lac from petitioner’s salary by way of deduction of 50% of basic salary per month till full amount is recovered. This order was passed by the Chairman of the bank, who is the Disciplinary Authority. As provided in the regulations the appeal lies to the Board of the bank against such a decision. Petitioner preferred an appeal, not only his appeal was dismissed but punishment altered. As against two increments which were withheld only one increment was withheld that way petitioner’s punishment was reduced. But, so far as recovery is concerned, it was ordered that interest @ 12% per annum would be charged on the balance outstanding in respect of recovery. This was substantial enhancement. This order as well as the original order is under challenge. As pleadings are complete, with consent of parties the writ petition is being disposed of this stage itself. Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the order of punishment cannot be sustained as withholding increments and recovery 3 are two independent major punishments and for the same delinquency two separate punishments cannot be imposed on basis of principle of double jeopardy. His second submission is that there cannot be an enhancement by the Appellate Authority in this regards. His third submission is that the Disciplinary Authority was the Chairman and as would be apparent from the impugned order, as contained in Annexure- 10, the appellate order of the Chairman, who was himself the Disciplinary Authority and lastly the punishment is excessive and not commensurate to the delinquency. Coming to the first contention of the double jeopardy, I am unable to persuade myself to accept the argument. The concept of double jeopardy is that once a person is trying of delinquency and order of punishment or otherwise is passed, the issue cannot be reopened again. Here, the issue was causing loss by negligent act. Once negligent act was established a punishment had to be given then the negligence having caused the loss, the loss had to be recovered. They are two different things. The two can go together. There is nothing wrong or illegal about it. The second submission is, was that the Appellate Authority could not increase the punishment to that extent. Mr. Singh, learned Senior counsel is correct. Before enhancing the punishment a party is required to be noticed again. It is not in dispute that the power to enhance is there in the Appellate Authority but before that can be exercised the petitioner has to be noticed. Undisputedly, petitioner was not noticed for any enhancement. The enhancement is that when the 4 Disciplinary Authority merely made an order of recovery of money and made no provision for awarding interest, the Appellate Authority could not burden the petitioner with interest. Without notice to that extent the order of the Appellate Authority stands vitiated and cannot be sustained. This part of the order is deleted. The third submission of Mr. Singh is, with regard to the Chairman the Disciplinary Authority having passed the appellate order. I am not impressed with the argument. A reference to the Appellate Authority would show that it is the Chairman, who is merely communicating the order of the Board. As per the regulations, an appeal lies to the Board. The Chairman is the Chief Executive Officer, who communicates the decision of the Board. The impugned order, as contained in Annexure-10, is merely the communication and the communication itself clearly states that the decision was taken by the Board of Directors in the 145th meeting of the Board, which is being communicated. Therefore, the submission of Mr. Singh cannot be accepted. Lastly, it was submitted that the punishment was disproportionate to the delinquency. Stopping one increment for five years, which is the reduced punishment, as given by the Appellate Authority, in my view, is not disproportionate. Mr. Singh then submits that recovery of the money by deduction of 50% of his basic salary is disproportionate. This is hardly a punishment. Recovery of money lost by negligence is not, in fact, a punishment but a compensation for loss committed. It is not disproportionate compensation. Compensation is 5 limited to the amount of loss caused. Thus, there is no illegality in this part of the order. In view of my findings as aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)