HIGHCPURTOF CHHATTISGARH : BSLASPUR DIVISIO^ BENCH : HON'BLE SHRi H.L. DATTU,CJ & HON'BLE SHR! V.K. SHRIVASTAVA, J. WRiT APPEAL NQ. 27 0^2007 APPELLAMTS 1) Smt. Rajeshwari Agrav^al, wldow of Sirkant Agrawal. 2) Rajesh Agrawai, s/o. Late Shri S.K.Agrawal. 3) Brijesh AgrawaS, s/o. Late Sri S.K. Agrawa!. 4) Umesh Agrawal, s/o. iate Sri S.K. Agrawal,. 5) Shivendra Agrawal, s/o. iate Sri S.K. Agrawa!. All r/o. Purani Bastl, Baniya Para, Raipur, CG. •RESPONDENTS v.^'^ Versus 1) Centrai Bank of indla, A natlonaiized Bank having its Centrai Oifice at Chhandermukhl Nariman Point, Bombay 400 021 . 2) The General Manager, Centrai BanR of India, CentraS Office at Chandramukhi. Nariman Point, Bombay400021. 3) The Deputy Generai Manager, Zonal Office, Centrai Bank of India, 33, Netaji Subhash Road, Calcutta7Q0001. PRESENT: Shri Raviranjan Sinha, counsei for the appeliants. Shri V.R. Tiwari, counsel for the respondents. i—~ ORAL ORDER (Passed on 3rd April 2007) The foliowing orai order of the court was passed by H.L. Dattu, CJ. This appeai arises out of an order dated 19-01-2008 passed by the tearned Singie Judge in Writ Petitlon No.3251/1994 and also the orderdated 31-3-2006 passed In M.C.C.No.143/2006. 2) Legai representatlves of one late Shrikant Agrawal were petitioners in Writ Petitlon No.3152/1994. While Shrikant Agrawat was aiive, he had fited W.P.No.3251/1994 mter a^a questioning the orders passed by the Dlscipilnary Authorifr^ and confirmed by the Appeiiate Authority. 8y those orders, the Disciplinary Authority had Imposed a punishment of removal of the petltioner fronn services for the alieged acts of misconduct. 3) During pendency of the writ petition, Shrikant Agrawal expired and with permlssion of thls Court his iegal representatives have come on record and prosecuted the wrlt petition. The main contention that canvassed in the writ petition was wlth regard to jurisdlctlon of one Shri S.R. Narayanan who was worklng as Deputy General l^lanager, the Discipiinary Authority otr Centrai Bank of india. 4) Slnce the petitloners1 learned counsel was not In a position to place aray regutetlon to support hls contention, learned Singie Judge had rejected the writ petition. Thereafter, thelegai representatlves of late Shrikant Agrawai had filed a review petitlon in IVS.C.C.No.143/2006, that was aiso rejected by the Jearned Singie Judge on the ground that by fiiing a review petition, petitioners cannot re-argue the matter. Itis <. correctness^or other^vlse of the above t^o orders, th^ are subject matters of this writ appeal. 5) Learned counsej appearing for the appellants strenuousiy contended before this Court that the Searned Single Judge was not justified In rejecting the writ petition. According to learned counsei for the appellants, Shri P.R. Sethl who was Deputy Generai Manager when ©nquiryprocesdings were heid and compieted, the oniy person who could have passed an order removing late Shrikant Agrawal from service. In support of that contention, the reference is made to the guidellnes issued bythe Ceniral Bank of India. S) According to learned counsel for the appeilants, those guldeiines are rnandatory and, therefore, the same requlres to be foilowed by the employees/offlcers of the Bank. In aid of his submission, iearned counsei has relied upon certain obsen/ations made by Gujrat High Court in the mater of Himatgiri Mohanglri Vs. Shri Pavari K.S. andfor hls successor in office, Inspector GeneraS of Police, Ahmedabad and another, reported in 1977 (2) SLR 623. 7) Per contra, Shri V.R. Tiwari, iearned counsel appearing for the respondents Bank would submit that the guidelines issued-by the Bank ^^v- are oniy directory and mandatory and if some deviation is there from /^ the guldelines, that cannot be taken advantage of by a delinquent officer. In aid of his submlssion, he has reiled upon the obser^ations made by the Hon'bJe the Apex Court in the matter of Union of India and others Vs. R.S. Saini, reported in 1991 8upp(2) SCC 151 . in the said decision, the Court has obsewed as under: ~— /^) "There is nothlng mandatory about the terms of this memorandum. The very ianguage of the memorandum makes it clear that it is oniy a guideiine to ensure that dJsdpJinary proceedings are completed as expeditiously as possibie. It a!so suggests that where the discipiinary officer feels that It is not posslble to adhere to the time-ilmit, a report shouid be made regarding the additional period needed for completing the same, That has also not been done in this case. But this itseif indicates that the three months iimit Indicated is relaxable if the circumstances justify It. It cannot be treated as a condition, non- compiiance with which wiii invalidate the order of punishment of the discipiinary authority. It is very difficuit to construe this memorandum as imposing a rigid time-limit for the imposition of the order of the punishment as heid by the Tribuna!." 8) in the instant case, the Disciplinary Authority of the respondents Bank by issuing a charge memo had appointed an Enquiry Officer to enquire into the aiiegations made in the charge memo. At the time of initiating the enquiry proceedings, one Shri Arjun Bhaya was the Deputy Generai Manager and aiso was the Discipiinary Authority of Jaithari Branch (Sahdol Region). 9) The Enquiry Officer after holding an enquiry had submitted hls report, the iist of documents marked in the enquiry and the statements of witnesses before one Shri P.R. Sethi, who was then workJng as Deputy Genera! Manager of the aforesaid region and in that capacity was the Disciplinary Authority. ^' 10) Sf so happened in the present case, that Shri P.R. Sethi was aiso transferred by an order dated 28-4-1992 and in his place one Shri S.R. Narayanan was posted as Deputy General iVlanager. in that capacity he was the Discipiinary Authority of the Branches of the Bank in Sahdoi Region. It is that officer who had passed the impugned order terminating the services of the petitioner from services of the Bank. it is that order which was questioned by iate Shrikant Agrawal before this Court> 11) In order to appreciate the contentions canvassed by learned counsel for the appeilants, it would be usefui to refer to the guldeiines Issued by the Bank. The same reads as under. "The Discipilnary Authority has oniy to consider the findings of the Enquiry Officer, arhve at a decision and pass his fsna! orders. Hence, (i) in cases where the findings of the Enquiry Officer have already been submitted to the Discipiinary Authority, there is no need to change the Disciplinary Authonty. (ii) if the findings have nt been submitted to the Disdplinary Authority at the time of his transfer, in such cases the succeeding Chief Manager/Asstt. General Manager should adopt the charge-sheet, appointment of Enquiry Officer/Presenting Officer etc. by issuing suitable notification and act as Disclplinary Authority." 12) A reading of the aforesaid guidelines issued by the Bank would demonstrate two things; firstiy if enquiry proceedlngs have been completed and those enquiry reports have been submitted by the Enquiry Officer to the Disdpiinary Authority, there is no need to change g-s B--- i r: the Discipiinar^ Authority, that oniy means that in a situation of the aforesaid nature, the Bank need not ^ change the Enquiry Offlcer, but in the present case, Mr. P.R. Sethl who was Deputy General Manager was transferred and in hls piace one Shri S.R. Narayanan was appointed as Deputy General Manager, in that capacity of Deputy General yanager he is aiso the Disciplinary Authority of the respondents Bank jn the Sahdoi Region. Therefore, no order 19 passed by any superior authority to change the Disciplinary Authority, therefore, assumlng the guidelines would come to assist to the appeliants, even then also because of the language impiled in the guldelines, appellants cannot get any reiief because no superior authority has passed any order changing the Dlscipiinary Authority. Even otherwlse also, iate Shrikant Agrawal has no vested right or any legal right to submit that it Is on!y P.R. Sethi who was Deputy General Manager before he was transferred from Shadol Regionto pass. an order on the report of the Enquiry Offlcer. Even, Hon'ble the Apex Court In the matter of R.S Saini (supra), has obser/ed that the guidelines issued by the Bank are not mandatory in nature and oniy directorv. 13) in view of the above, in our opinion, Jearned Single Judge was justified in rejecting the writ petition but also review petition fiSed by the lega! representatives of late Shrikant Agrawal, in that view of the matter no interference is cailed for. Accordingiy, writ appeai requires to be and is accordingiy rejected. Ordered accordingiv^^ Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- V.K.Shrivastava Judge