Sukhuwa Oraon And Ors vs Jharkhand Gramin Bank And Ors

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondent Bank.

The appellant is aggrieved by the impugned Judgment dated 03.08.2016, passed by the Writ Court in W.P.(S) No. 571 of 2008, whereby the writ application filed by the appellant writ petitioner, challenging the order of punishment of dismissal from service, which was upheld also by the Appellate Authority, has been dismissed by the Writ Court.

The appellant was a Scale-I Officer of the respondent Bank, and while he was posted as the Branch Manager of the Kanke Branch of the respondent Bank, loans were disbursed to several persons by him, without following the due process of disbursing the loans. To cap all, he had not even carried out the pre-sanction inspection of the borrowers before disbursing the loans, and this was the reason that he could not locate a single borrower out of the 65 borrowers to whom loans were disbursed. The appellant was subjected to departmental proceeding by the respondent Bank, and all that he did during the departmental proceeding, was that he only prayed for adjournments on one ground or the other. The impugned Judgment passed by the Writ Court details the dates on which he had prayed for adjournments in the departmental proceeding, from which we find that 11 adjournments were taken by him in the disciplinary proceeding, but still he never took part in the disciplinary proceeding, due to which the proceeding had to be done ex-parte against him. In the disciplinary proceeding, the management witnesses were examined and the documents were proved before the Enquiry Officer and the finding of guilt was recorded against him. Before passing the punishment order, the Disciplinary Authority also gave notice for personal hearing to the appellant, which also was not availed by him and accordingly, the punishment order of dismissal was passed by the Disciplinary Authority.

Before the Appellate Authority, which is the Board of Directors of the respondent Bank, the appellant filed his appeal, and he was also given the personal hearing before the Appellate Authority, where he appeared and admitted his guilt and prayed for mercy on humanitarian grounds. The appeal was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority.

Against the aforesaid impugned action, the appellant writ petitioner filed writ application in this Court, being W.P.(S) No. 571 of 2008, in which the grounds that were mainly taken by the petitioner were that he was not given adequate opportunity in the departmental proceeding and that the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority were the same person. The Hon’ble Single Judge has dispelled both these arguments of the writ petitioner and has found that 11 adjournments were given to him at his request, and still he did not appear before the disciplinary authority, due to which the ex-parte proceeding was held. The petitioner did not appear even before the Disciplinary Authority despite given an opportunity to him.

So far as the ground that the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority were the same person, it has been found by the Writ Court that the Disciplinary Authority was the Chairman of the respondent Bank, whereas the Appellate Authority was the Board of Directors headed by the Chairman. The Writ Court has taken note of the fact that while considering the appeal of the writ petitioner, the Chairman had absented himself from the proceedings, and he had only communicated the decision of the Board, being the Chairman of the Board. The Writ Court accordingly, relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India & Ors. Vs. P. Gunasekaran, reported in (2015) 2 SCC 610, found that no case was made out for any interference with the conclusions in the departmental enquiry, and also relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in Suresh Pathrella Vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce, reported in (2006) 10 SCC 57,2 holding that the Bank Officers are required to exercise the higher standards of honesty and integrity in order to protect the interests of the Bank, dismissed the writ application. Aggrieved, thereby the present L.P.A. has been filed by the appellant writ petitioner.

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned Judgment passed by the Writ Court cannot be sustained in the eyes of law, inasmuch as, the Chairman of the respondent Bank was not the Disciplinary Authority in the case, but he wrongly exercised that power. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that for officers of Scale-I in the Gramin Bank, the Disciplinary Authority is the Regional Manager, and at the relevant time, the General Manager-cum-Regional Manager was available in the Bank, which information was given to him under the Right to Information Act, and accordingly, the Chairman could not have acted as the Disciplinary Authority in the case. In support of his contention, learned counsel has brought on record by way of supplementary affidavit, the information given to him under the Right to Information Act, vide letter dated 04.08.2008, as also a letter dated 23.06.2006, whereby the Chairman himself had assumed the responsibility of the Disciplinary Authority. Learned counsel has also submitted that during the disciplinary proceedings, the appellant had also prayed for allowing him to be assisted through an advocate, which was also refused to him. Learned counsel accordingly, submitted that in the present case the punishment order was passed by the Chairman, who was in fact not the Disciplinary Authority, and the appellate order was also passed by the same person. Further, it is submitted by the learned counsel that even right to proper defense had been refused to the petitioner, as he was denied the help of legal practitioner. On these arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned Judgment cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.

Learned counsel for the respondent Bank, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer, and has pointed out that against the refusal of the help of legal practitioner to the appellant, he had approached this Court in W.P (S) No. 3563 of 2006, which was dismissed by order dated 08.08.2006, and this fact has also been taken note by the Writ Court, and as such this chapter is now closed, as the said order was never challenged by the appellant. It is further pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent Bank that the documents were brought on record to show that while the appellant was given the personal hearing before the Board of Directors, the Chairman of the respondent Bank had absented himself from the proceedings, and it was only before the remaining Directors in the Board, that the appellant had pleaded his guilt and also prayed for mercy, which was refused and thereafter, the appellate order was communicated to the appellant, and this fact has also been noted in detail by the Hon’ble Single Judge, while dismissing the writ application. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank accordingly, submitted that there is no illegality in the impugned Judgement passed by the Writ Court.

Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and upon going through the record, we find that letters dated 23.06.2006 and 04.08.2008 relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant to show that Regional Manager was the Disciplinary Authority, who was also available, is not of much help to the appellant, inasmuch as, the letter dated 23.06.2006, shows that the Chairman of the Bank had assumed the role of Disciplinary Authority, not only for the sole case of the appellant, rather for all the officers in general, in absence of the Regional Manager. The other letter dated 08.04.2008 also shows that it was the General Manager-cum-Regional Manager who was available, which goes to show that the post of Regional Manager was vacant at the relevant time, due to which the General Manager was also having the charge of Regional Manager, during the absence of the regular incumbent of that post, which post might have been filled up subsequently by the regular incumbent, but at the relevant time was lying vacant.

Though it is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Disciplinary Authority was originally different then the Chairman and the Chairman had assumed the role of the Disciplinary Authority, but the fact remains that in the present case the appellant had not taken part even in the disciplinary enquiry, from which he had completely absented himself, and the disciplinary enquiry had to be conducted ex-parte. The Disciplinary Authority, i.e., the Chairman who had assumed the charge in absence of the regular Disciplinary Authority, had also given him opportunity of being heard, but he did not avail that opportunity also, and did not appear before him. During the proceeding before the Appellate Authority, about which we have already stated, and also found by the Writ Court, that the Chairman had absented himself, and in absence of the Chairman, the appellant himself had pleaded his guilt before the remaining Directors in the Board, and had also prayed for mercy on humanitarian grounds before the Appellate Authority, but in view of the proved misconduct of the appellant, that the appellant had disbursed the loan to the several persons without even following the procedure and without even conducting the pre-sanction inspection of the borrowers, there was no scope left before the Appellate Authority to show any mercy upon the appellant on any ground what so ever.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not find any illegality in the impugned Judgement dated 03.08.2016, passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge, in W.P.S(S) No. 571 of 2008, dismissing the writ application, worth any interference in exercise of the L.P.A. jurisdiction.

There is no merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly, dismissed. The pending I.A also stands disposed of.