Jharkhand Gramin Bank vs Devendra Prasad And Ors

Dr. Ravi Ranjan, CJ

We have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as respondent no. 1.

This appeal has been preferred by appellant-Jharkhand Gramin Bank-respondent no. 1 in the writ petition, assailing the order dated 13.2.2019 passed

by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 664 of 2013 by which the order passed by the appellate authority dated 01.12.2012 has been

quashed and set aside and the matter has been remanded to the appellate authority who was also warned and directed to come out with an

independent conclusion without being influenced by the original authority.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has vehemently argued before us that the order impugned has been passed under certain misconception

that the original authority had acted like appellate authority and has approved its own order passed as original authority and this was the reason why

warning has been given to the concerned.

Respondent no. 1-writ petitioner filed the writ petition for quashing the penalty imposed by the original authority dated 18.11.2011 and also the order of

appellate authority dated 01.12.2012 by which the order of punishment has been affirmed. The writ petitioner was in service of the appellant as Clerk-

cum-Cashier having joined on 29.08.1990. A memo of charge was issued to the writ petitioner vide memo dated 19.12.2009 framing charges against

the writ petitioner regarding discrepancies made in the balance-sheet as also casual approach towards his duty so far as maintenance of records is

concerned.

However, from perusal of the order impugned it is writ large that what persuaded the learned Single Judge in allowing the writ petition and remanding

back the matter to the appellate authority was the fact that the Chairman of the Gramin Bank being the disciplinary authority had passed the order of

punishment and being the member of the Board of Directors, which is the appellate authority, had assessed and approved his own decision imposing

punishment. On such impression the writ petition was allowed and the appellate order was quashed and set aside and appellate authority was warned

and directed to come to an independent conclusion without being influenced by the original authority who is the Chairman of the Gramin Bank.

However, in our considered opinion, the aforesaid view has been taken by the learned Single Judge without appreciating Annexure-13 series, which is

the minutes of 33rd meeting of the Board of Directors of Jharkhand Gramin Bank held on 07.02.2012 and 37th meeting held on 16.11.2012. In the 33rd

meeting, at Agenda No. 13, the appeal of the writ petitioner was considered by the Board which was against the penalty order dated 18.11.2011 of the

disciplinary authority, i.e., Chairman of the Bank. Of course the Board of Directors of which the Chairman would obviously be a member has

considered the appeal but at the same time it is written specifically in the minutes related to Agenda No. 13 that, being the disciplinary authority whose

order has been appealed against, the Chairman had dissociated himself from the proceedings of the Board. Under the aforesaid Agenda No. 13, the

Board had advised to convey the said decision of penalty to the CVO of Sponsor Bank for confirmation and thereafter, in the 37th meeting dated

16.11.2012 at Agenda no. 14, after considering the advice of CVO placed before the Board and after consideration of the material available on

record, the Board had taken a decision to reject the appeal but there also, it has been written specifically that being the disciplinary authority whose

decision was appealed against, the Chairman has dissociated himself from the proceedings of the Board. In the counter affidavit filed by the Bank

also, in paragraph 16 in particular, it was stated that the Chairman had merely communicated the decision of the appellate authority, i.e. the Board to

the petitioner. From perusal of order of the Chairman communicating the decision of the Board also, it appears that brief history has been given as to

how the proceeding was initiated and how the punishment was imposed and thereafter in what manner the Board decided the issue and what is the

ultimate decision which has been communicated. While signing the order, the Chairman has written that it is being signed as per the order of the

appellate authority, which, in its 37th meeting, had directed and authorised the Chairman to issue a proper and speaking appellate order conveying the

decision of the Board to the writ petitioner.

In nutshell, it does not appear that the Chairman, who is the disciplinary authority and had passed the punishment order has participated in the appellate

proceeding or has in any manner influenced the Board or has taken any independent view while considering the appeal of the writ petitioner. In such a

situation, we are unable to approve the impugned order dated 13.02.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge.

In the result, this appeal is allowed.

The impugned order dated 13.02.2019 is quashed and set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned Single Judge for fresh consideration of

the writ petition on its own merit and in accordance with law.