R. K. Jain vs Madhya Bharat Gramin Bank

Hon''ble Shri Justice Rajendra Menon

Petitioner is working as an Officer MM-II in the Madhya Bharat Gramin Bank. He is under suspension and presently attached in the office of Regional Officer of the Bank at Tikamgarh. Challenging the order dated 22.3.2012 passed by the respondent rejecting the representation filed by the petitioner for revocation of his suspension and for granting him certain documents, petitioner has filed this writ petition.

Petitioner claims to have been appointed in the Bank in the year 1984, promoted from time to time. According to the petitioner in the year 2010 one Shri Anil Mishra was posted as Field Officer in the Panna Branch and has made recommendation of various loans to various persons. Petitioner was temporarily posted in the said Branch and on a false allegation that petitioner is also responsible for having granted the loans in an illegal manner a charge sheet Annexure P/5 has been issued to the petitioner dated 20th July 2011 as contained in Annexure P/5. It is a case of the petitioner that before issuing the charge sheet petitioner was suspended and therefore, he filed a writ petition before this Court being W.P. No.18568/2011 (s) challenging the order of suspension and sought for revocation of the suspension. It was the case of the petitioner that along with the petitioner more than 8 other persons have been suspended but in the case of most of these persons the suspension has been revoked but only in the case of the petitioner suspension has not been revoked. It was also pointed out by the petitioner vide Annexure P/9 that in the case of most of the officers even during the period of suspension they were attached to the nearby Branches whereas, in the case of the petitioner he was posted to Tikamgarh which is far away from his native place Damoh. Accordingly contending that in the matter of suspension and posting petitioner has been discriminated earlier Writ Petition No.18568/2011 was filed. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the competent authority to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner by a speaking order. Claim having been rejected petitioner is again before this Court and it is contended that the order has not been passed as directed by this Court in as much as it is not a speaking order and it does not show application of mind. Accordingly contending that suspension of the petitioner is ordered illegally, petitioner is discriminated in as much as similar treatment as has been granted to more than five employees as communicated in Annexure P/9, challenge is made to the order of suspension.

The second ground canvassed is that petitioner sought for appointment of one Shri Goswami as defence counsel, this prayer has been rejected and contending that petitioner''s right to defend by choosing defense counsel of his choice is rejected. Third ground of challenge is that in the enquiry petitioner has sought for various documents particularly search report, these reports are not granted and in the absence of these report, petitioner''s right to participate in the enquiry is being adversely effected, petitioner seeks interference into the matter.

Shri Vivek Rusia, learned counsel for the petitioner took me through the material available on record and emphasized that the action of the respondents in not acceding to the request of the petitioner as claimed for is not in accordance to law and therefore, interference be made.

Shri Ashish Shroti, learned counsel appearing for respondent Bank has refuted each and every allegation and by filing reply has tried to justify the action. As far as suspension of the petitioner and discrimination is concerned, it is pointed out that suspension of the petitioner is based on the allegation leveled against the petitioner. The allegation leveled against each of the employee is different and looking to the nature of allegation leveled against the petitioner, post held by him, it is stated that the competent authority has rejected the prayer for revocation of suspension. Shri Shroti submits that in the absence of any material available to show that the suspension is vitiated due to breach of any statutory provisions, rules or regulations or malafides, interference into the order of suspension is not called for. Accordingly, Shri Shroti submits that suspension is just and proper and on the same no interference is called for.

As far as supply of documents is concerned, Shri Shroti has brought to the notice of this Court and has brought on record entire proceeding of the enquiry held on 5.3.2012 vide Annexure R/3, list of documents sought for by the petitioner vide Annexure R/2 and submits that all the documents referred to in the charge sheet have been supplied to the petitioner and as all the other documents are found to be irrelevant, they are rejected by the enquiry officer. Shri Shroti points out that petitioner has already filed appeal under Right to Information Act with regard to supply of these documents and therefore, on the ground of non-supply of documents interference into the matter is not called for. Finally with regard to non permission to appoint Shri Goswami to assist the petitioner in the departmental enquiry, Shri Shroti invites my attention to the Circular issued by the Bank as contained in Annexure P/17 dated 3.3.2012 and submits that there is no statutory rules or regulations in this regard but as a policy decision the Bank has resolved that a defence counsel shall be permitted to assist a employee in two cases and as the defence counsel Shri Goswami is already engaged in two inquiries, he cannot be permitted to participate as a defence counsel. This decision is taken so that defence counsel is not always engaged in enquiry without discharging his official duties with the Bank. As there is a restriction on a defence counsel being engaged in more than two inquiries, petitioner has been granted liberty to choose any other defence counsel. Learned counsel for the respondents invites my attention to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of D.G. Railway Protection Force and Others Vs. K. Raghuram Babu, and Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. Vs. Maharashtra General. Kamgar Union and Ors, , and submits that the petitioner cannot have any grievance in the matter of not permitting Shri Goswami as a defence counsel because engagement of defence counsel on petitioner''s choice is not a matter of legal right but is based on Circulars and policies applicable. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is submitted that there is no illegality warranting any interference.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is clear from the record that a charge sheet Annexure P/5 has been issued to the petitioner on 20th July, 2011 and serious allegations with regard to irregularities in the matter of granting loan in more than 30 cases have been leveled. The petitioner has been suspended and the only grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of direction issued by this Court on the previous occasion in W.P. No.18568/2011 on 23.11.2011 the question of revocation of suspension of the petitioner has not been decided by a speaking order giving reasons. Respondents in the return have pointed out that with regard to similar sets of allegations more than 8 persons have been proceeded against and all were suspended but on appeals filed in the case of more than 5 employees, the suspension has been revoked. From the record it is clear that each officer holds a different post, cadre or a designation and role of each and every officer in the allegation of misconduct leveled are different. The departmental authorities after evaluating the allegation leveled against an individual and after taking note of gravity of misconduct has thought it appropriate not to revoke the suspension of the petitioner. This Court cannot interfere now on the ground of discrimination because case of each individual officer has to be viewed differently depending on the allegations leveled. In the absence of any statutory rules or regulations shown to be violated in the matter of suspension or posting of the petitioner, this Court does not deem it appropriate to interfere into the matter merely on the ground that suspension order has not been revoked in comparison to other employees in whose cases the suspension order is revoked. Case of each individual person is different and if the respondents after evaluating the case of the petitioner in the backdrop of the post held by the petitioner, the role played by the petitioner in commission of the act, if any, and various other allegations have decided not to revoke the suspension of the petitioner, this Court does not sit over the decision of the Disciplinary Authority as if it is exercising the appellate jurisdiction in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. This function cannot be discharged by this Court and in the absence of any statutory provisions being shown to be violated or malafide made out, at this stage interference into the order of suspension is not called for. Accordingly, I find no reason to interfere in the action of respondents in not revoking the suspension of the petitioner. If petitioner is aggrieved, he should file appeal before the appellate authority and it would be for the appellate authority to consider the grievance of the petitioner. As far as supply of the documents is concerned, the enquiry proceedings are available on record. Annexure R/2 indicates that all the documents referred to in the charge sheet are supplied to the petitioner. As far as other documents are concerned, petitioner has sought this documents under Right to Information Act, they were rejected and appeal in this regard are pending before the competent authority under the Right to Information Act. That apart, the enquiry officer has found that these documents are not relevant and cannot be supplied. A writ Court exercising limited jurisdiction in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is not required to interfere at every stage of the departmental enquiry nor is it supposed to monitor the departmental enquiry at every stage. If a departmental enquiry is to be monitored in this manner by a Writ Court, the departmental enquiry will never come to an end. Once the departmental authority has taken a decision and refuse certain prayer made by the delinquent employee in the departmental enquiry, in the absence of any statutory provisions being shown to be violated in the discretion exercised by the authority, interference at the interlocutory stage of a departmental enquiry is not called for. Petitioner should participate in the enquiry and thereafter challenge the final outcome after the enquiry is completed. Merely because discretion exercised by the authority in refusing to supply certain documents, according to the petitioner is not proper, interference cannot be made by this Court in the absence of any statutory provisions being shown to be violated. Accordingly, on the ground that documents have not been supplied, interference into the matter is not warranted.

As far as permitting Shri Goswami to participate in the enquiry as defence counsel of the petitioner is concerned, the Circular available on record and the policy of the Bank clearly shows that a defence counsel can appear in only two enquiry at a time and as defence counsel recommended by the petitioner Shri Goswami is already engaged in more than two enquiry, respondents have not committed any error in rejecting this prayer. Petitioner should nominate any other person as a defence counsel as claim made by the petitioner to nominate Shri Goswami alone as a defence counsel is not based on any statutory provision and nomination of defence counsel as held by the Supreme Court in the cases relied upon by Shri Shroti is not a legal right but is governed by rules and regulations in this regard. As per the policy applicable in the Bank nomination of Shri Goswami is not permissible. On the ground raised in this writ petition in the matter of nomination of defence counsel no interference is called for.

Accordingly finding no ground to interfere on the grounds raised at this stage when the enquiry is continuing, this petition is dismissed. It is clarified that the finding recorded in the order are only for considering the question of interference at this stage. Ultimately if the petitioner is aggrieved by the final outcome of the enquiry, liberty is granted to the petitioner to challenge the final outcome of the departmental enquiry and the grounds raised in this petition can also be raised at that point of time. With the aforesaid liberty to the petitioner, this petition is dismissed.