Surendra Kumar Prasad vs Jharkhand Gramin Bank

The petitioner is aggrieved of order dated 11.08.2011 by which the appellate authority has rejected his appeal preferred against the order of removal

from service vide order dated 21.08.2010.

2. The petitioner who was appointed as Field Supervisor on 17.03.1981 has claimed that in a road accident he suffered serious head injuries.Â

While posted as Manager of the Jharkhand Gramin Bank's Saiko Branch, Ranchi region (1996 to 2001), as officiating Manager at Bharno Branch,

Ranchi region (April-May, 2006) and as Second Officer at Sarjamda Branch, Singhbhum region, he allegedly recommended proposals for sanction of

loan and did not enter cash deposits in the bank's record. On the aforesaid allegations a departmental enquiry was instituted in which a charge-

memo containing Articles of Charge, list of witnesses and documents were served upon him by post. During the departmental enquiry notices were

issued to him, however, he did not participate in the enquiry and resultantly an enquiry report was submitted in which charges framed against him have

been found proved. A copy of the enquiry report was served upon him through the second show-cause notice to which he responded by submitting

his representation which was received by the disciplinary authority on 07.07.2010. The disciplinary authority has inflicted punishment of removal

from service and this order has been affirmed by the appellate authority.

Plea urged on behalf of the petitioner is that once the respondents admit that the petitioner was under treatment and the medical prescriptions

produced by him are not disputed, the ex-parte enquiry proceeding against him was illegal.

From the enquiry report dated 30.04.2010 it appears that between 15.07.2009 to 24.03.2010 enquiry was fixed on as many as 21 occasions and the

delinquent was afforded opportunity to participate in the departmental enquiry. The petitioner has taken a stand that in a road accident he had

suffered serious head injuries on account of which he was prevented from participating in the departmental enquiry. He has produced a copy of

letter dated 27.07.2009 which corroborates his stand that during the departmental proceeding he was undergoing treatment. The appellate authority,

however, has failed to consider the stand taken by the delinquent. Simply narrating few facts of the case, the appellate authority has rejected the

appeal preferred by the petitioner.Â

A statutory authority exercising quasi-judicial powers is under a duty to consider contentions raised by the parties and record its own independent

findings; howsoever brief it may be. The appellate order must reflect application of mind by the authority. Mere re-production of few facts

without noticing the defence taken by the delinquent would not satisfy the requirements in law. Such an order would be in violation of the rules of

natural justice. The appellate order dated 11.08.2011 does not reflect any of the plea raised by the delinquent. It has however taken note of past

misconduct of the petitioner on which no charge was framed against him. It is not reflected in the enquiry report or the order of the disciplinary

authority that the witnesses have spoken about past misconduct of the petitioner and while so, it could not have been taken as a ground to affirm the

penalty of removal from service.Â

In the above facts, finding serious infirmity in the appellate order dated 11.08.2011, it is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the appellate

authority to pass a reasoned order within a period of 3 months. The petitioner shall be at liberty to file supplementary-affidavit in support of the plea

taken by him in the memorandum of appeal, within a period of 4 weeks.

The writ petition stands allowed, in the aforesaid terms.