ig^S^S'.?^ ^^^^^^'S^ss^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. No. 325lof 1994 PetitioDcrs Shrikant Agrawal (dead) thiough Legal Representatives:- 1. Siat Rajeshwari Agrawal, Widow ofShrikantAgrawal, aged about 44years. 2. Rajcsh Agrawal, S/o Late Shri S. K. Y^rawal, aged about 23 years. 3. Brijesh Agrawal, S/o Late Shri S. K. Agrawal, aged about 21 years. 4. Uiiiesh Agrawal, S/o Late Shri S. K. Agrawal, ^ed about 19 ycars. 5. Shivendra Agrawal, S/o Late Shri S. K. Agrawal, aged. about 18 years. AB R/o Purani Basti, Bania Para, Raipur (C.G.) Versus Respoudents 1. CeatralBank: oflndia, A natiiiaKsed Bank, having it's Central Office at 'ChandermuKhi' Narunan Point, Boinbay - 400 021. 2. The Geueral Maaager, Central Baak oflndia, Central Ofi&ce at Chandenntildu, Nariaian Poiat, Bombay-400021 3. The Dcputy GeacralMans^er, Zonal OfBce, Central Baiik of ludia, 33, Netaji Subhash Road, Calcutta - 700 001 Sin^le Bench: Hdn'bte Mr. Justice Satisb K. Agnlhotri. Shri R. R. Sinha, Advocate for thc petitionere. Shri B. D. Guru, Advocate for fhe Respoiidents. ORAL ORDER (l9AJanuary, 2006) The foUowing order ofthe Court was passed by Srtidi K. Agnihotrit J. 1. The present petition was filed by Stui Srikaat AgrawaL During the pendeucy of this petitmn, fhe petitioner died and vide order dated 4.9.1998 passed by fhis Court legal reprcsentatives ofthe petitioner were brought on record. The petitioner was appointed as Clerk-ciun-Cashier on 18.1.1971. Thereafter he was proiaoted to fhe post of Junior Managenient Grade Scale-I on 1.1.1978. He was flirth.er proinoted to the post of Middte Manageinent Grade Scale-II vide oider dated 30.6.1987 (Aiuiexure P/l). He wss posted as Brauch Manager ux Jaifhad Branch (Sahdol Regioa) fi^om 16.10.1984to 2S.1.1986. He was further lookiag aflter fhe work of Braach Mau^er at Birsinghpur Pali Branch (Sahdol Regkin) also froia 26.1.1986 to 16.1.1987, in the Juiuor ManE^ement Giade Scale-I. When Sbri Srikaut Agarwal (Shri S. K. ^axwal) was posted as Intemal Auditor, Audit Zone, Calcutta, he was served with m.emoranduia dated 17.6.1991 (Annexure P/2) mformiug him fhat it was proposed to hold a departinental eaqiiiry against 1iirn ia regard to fhe iaaputation of miscoaduct set out ir» fhe enclosed articles of chai^e. The statenient of misconduct in support of articles of charge was also enclDsed with the memoraudum.. Accordiag to the chai^e-sheet, there wcre two chai^es of granting loans. The first chat^e is for the period when fhe petitioner was posted at Jaithari Branch. During (hat period the petitioner granted loans to Shri Dashra.th Prasad Soiii, Kuia. Rita Soni (niinor daughter of Shri Dashrath Pr&sad Soni), Ku. Saagita Soiu (miaor daughter of Shri Dashrafh Prasad Soiu), and Master Saajay Kum.ar Soni (muiDr son of Shri Dasluafh Prasad Soni) for fhe purpose of mobfle grain shops. The second charge was for fhe period wheu fhe petitioner was posted at Birshmgpur Pali Branch. During fhat period fhe petitioner granted loans to Shri Birendra Kumar Lal, Shri Nirbhay Chand Lal, Shri Abhay Chand Lal, aud Shri Rajesh Kuinar Shanna for fhe piupose of electrical goods shop, and further aUowed cleaa overdraft to M/s Mithfln Electricals (proprietor of which was Shri Nirbhay Chand Lal). Thus the petitioner was charged with misconducts under Regulatiou 3 (1) (3) read wifh Regulatmn 24 of Central Bsaak of India Ofi&cer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 (for short 'the Regulations, 1976") for causing monetaiy loss of about Rs. l,04,455/- and Rs. 94,094/- to fhe baak. Thereafter, con-^endmn dated 28.10.1991 (Aimexure P/3), 2.12.1991 (Aiuiexure P/4) and 27.3.1992 (Anaexure P/5) were issued for correctmg typographical errors in the chai^e sheet. 4. Shri K, D. Sood, Assistant Regioaal Msmssger, Sahdol was appointed aa Inquiring Autliority and ShriA. P. Shiikla, D.C.O. Regional OfBce, GwaBor was appoiuted as Presenting OfiBcer. The Inquiring Authority afier issuing nottee and giviog fuU opporturdly ofhearing to the petitioner, subnutted tus report on 26.6.1992 to the DiscipUnaiy Autiiority, finding aU the charges proved. The enquiiy report was supplied to fhe petitioner vidc letter dated 3.9.1992 (Annexure P/7). The petitioner subinitted his representetion on 31.10.1992 (Aunexure P/8). The DiscipUnaiy Authonly having agreed with the cnquiry report awarded the punislunent ofDisuussal which shaU orduiarify toe a disqualification for future employment" zinder Clause 4(h) of fhe Regulations 1976 vide his final order dated 21.12.1992. This dccision of fhe Disciplinaiy Authorily was coiamuiucated to the petitioner vide administrative onler dated 31.12.1992 (Aruiexure P/12) and the puiushment was inflicted upon fhe petitioD.er with iminediate effect. Being aggrieved, the petitkxner filed an appeal to th.e appeUate authority, Central Baiik of India, Centeal Of&ce, Bombay on 1.2.1993 (Aiuiexurc P/14), raising several ofher grounds including fhe ground that fhe findiag of fhe Inquiring Aufhority was contradictoiy. The appeUate authority by a detaOed reasoned order dated 29.7.1993 (Annexure P/15) dismissed fhe appeal and confirmed the pimishnieut ofdisnussal fiTom service, awarded to the petitk>ner in respect of bofh char^es separately, as being coininensurate with the seriousness of fhe chaiys. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a review petition-inercy appeal dated 21.8.1993 (Anncxure P/16) to the ChainnaD & Managing Director, Central Baak of India, Bombay, which was also disnaissed by order dated 27.1.1994 (Aanexure P/ 17). Thie petitioner has fited this petition under Ardcle 226 of fhe Constitution of India praying fhat fhe chaige sheet Aanexure P/2, enquiiy report Annexure P/3, order of puiushiucnt Annexure P/13, subsequent orders passed in appeal aad review Annexure P/15 aiid P/ 17 be quashed. The petitioner has chaBengcd the enquuy report on the grouad fhat fhe petitioner was deiued the r^ht of hearimg after the enquiry report. It was further averred that fhe order of punishinent was not passed by fhc discipUnaiy aufhority, fhc chai^es firamed were not specific, the enquiring authority failed to obserye (he principles of iiatural justtee and fhe appeUate authority has not looked iuto fhe contents of fhe appeal filed by fhe petitiouer whfle passing fhe impugned order. 8. I have heard Shri R. R. Sinha, learaed counsel for the pctitioners as weU. as Shri B. D. Guru, leamed couusel for fhe respondents, and gonc ttuough the enqiuiy report as weU as the order passed by fhe appeUate aufhori.ly. 9. On perusal offhe fimdings ofthe enquirmg authority, it is foiuid fhat there is no contradiction ia the enquity report aad fhe chai^es are specific. The petitioner was gwen suEBcient opportunily of hearing and even after the enquiry report was submitted, the pctitioner had filed his representatiou, wliich •waa considered aud fhe disinissal order was passed after consideriag ttie representation of the petitioner to the enquny report. The appeUatc authority has hwked into aB the contents offhe appeal and heU tbat the enquuy was conducted in a veiy impartial inanaer and fuU opportuiiily was affordcd to the defence. The appdlate authority has further reconled the finduig ttaat the loans were granted without pre-sanction and post-sanction iaspection, wtuch bas caused loss to fhc Baak. 10. Wifh regard to the chaUenge ofthe petitroner that the order of dismissal was not passed by thc coinpetent aufhority, it is evident that the order was passed by the competent authorily who was Depu-ty General Maaager of the area. Admittedfy, Depuly General Maaager was corapetent aufhority aad the General Maas^er was the appeUate authorily. Oa ttie queiy, learaed counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to point out as to who was fhc coiupetent aufhority. 11. Shri B. D. Guru, leamed couasel appearing for the respondents relied on the document Annexure R/4, annexed with fhe retum. Said docuaieut is not relevaat in fhe present dispute as the 6 ^:. 12. 13. saine deals wifh fhe disciplinaiy aufhorities for ofBcers ofjunior maaageinent and inaldle maiiageaient (scate-II and scale-III). In the present case the petitioner was juiuor inanageinent gradc scale-I and the uapugned order was passed by a veiy seufor oScer i.e. Deputy General Manager and the appellate authority was Geueral Maaager. Hence, ia fhe absencc of the infonnation, as to who was the real coinpetenfauthorily as it couM not be pointed out by teamed counsel for fhe petitioncr, the Deputy General Maaagcr is fhe coiapctent disciplinaiy aufhority in the present case. . I do not find aay iafiraaty in fbe enquiiy report, the ordcr passed by tfae djsciplinaiy aufhority and the order passed by fhe qppeBate aufhority. Hence, it does not wanaat for an iaterfenence with fhe findings and decisions of the disciplinaiy authority as well as the appeBate aufhority. For the reasons stated above, fhis pctidon fe disxnissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Satish K.Agnihotri Judge Thakur