Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Ganesh Ram Chalak

Chhattisgarh HC4 Jul 2012WA/182/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench allowed an appeal partly against a Single Judge's order reinstating a bank employee. While upholding the termination's quashing due to denial of documents during inquiry, the court held back wages require a factual inquiry. It directed a fresh valid inquiry to be completed within six months and awarded salary compensation for the interim stay period.

What did the court decide?

Reinstatement within one month; fresh departmental inquiry to be concluded within three months; payment of salary compensation for the period since the interim stay order.

Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank Vs Ganesh… — Service and Employment | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

u^z^. IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR(C.G.)

¶3

WRIT APPEAL NQ, 1 B 2— OF 2011 UNDER SECTION 2 f 11 OF THE CHHHAATTISGARH HIGH COURT rAPPEAL TO DIVISION BENCH1 ACT, 2007

¶4

APPELLANTS . 1. Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya [RESPONDENTS] Gramin Bank, though it?s Managing Director, Dayalband, Bilaspur. h ^ 2. Chairman, Bilaspur Raipur ,^...-^ Kshetriya Gramin Bank, .^ss> Dayalbandh, Bilaspur.

¶5

h ^ 2. ,^...-^ t .^ss> ^^^> ^•-t'<^ ^<:J^<V-' ^- ^ ><v y RESPONDENT PETITIONER

¶6

VERSUS

¶7

Ganesh Ram Chalak son of Shri Kanch Ram Chalak, r/o Village 85 Post Churi, Tahsil Katghora, District Korba.

¶8

^s^^...-

¶9

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶10

D.B.: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhav Manohar Sapre & Hon?ble Mr. Justice G. Minhajuddin

¶11

Wrjtjlppeal No. 182 of 201 1

¶12

APPELLANTS Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank, through it's Managing Director, Dayalband, Bilaspur and another

¶13

Versus

¶14

RESPPNDENT Ganesh Ram Chalak

¶15

WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2(11 OF THE CHHAmSGARH HIGH COURT (APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCH1, ACT, 2006

¶16

Appearance :

¶17

Mr. Pramod Verma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sumit Verma, Counsel for the appellant. Mr. Prafull Bharat and Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Counsel for the respondent.

¶18

ORDER

¶19

IINo»r

¶20

The following order of the Courf was passed by

¶21

Abhay Manohar Sapje^^L

¶22

Heard.

¶23

(2) This is an appeal filed by the respondents (appellants herein) of W.P. No. 3790 of 1998 under Section 2 (1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench) Act, 2006 against the order dated 28th of March 2011 passed by the Single Judge in the aforementioned writ petition.

¶24

(3) By impugned order, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner (respondent herein) and while setting aside of writ petitioner's termination from the

¶25

services, directed his reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits.

¶26

(4) So the question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether learned the Single Judge was justified in allowing the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner (respondent herein) and if so, whether he was further justifled in granting all consequential beneflts to the writ petitioner flowing from such order?

¶27

(5) Facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. They, however, need mention in short.

¶28

¶29

(6) The appellant (respondent before the writ Court) is a Bank, whereas, the respondent herein (writ petitioner) is the employee of the appellant - Bank working at the relevant time on the post of Clerk-cum-cashier.

¶30

(7) The respondent (employee) was served with a charge sheet dated 09.07.1987 by the appellant - Bank setting out therein the misconduct alleged to have been committed by the respondent in discharge of his duties. The charges read as under:

¶31

^iKsii cfrl^jl ^' ^ra^ ^T ^f^fZR ^ •<(()TT ^f ^pf ^^ ^ STHT^ d^bicti-1 ?rrar ^^w ^ft ^O^TO ^l^l^lf^^l ^ T^T ^ 'o^e' ^rft^ ^ ^FUT f^RTT '^' ^t^^^i ^^? 3THT OT^f^ ^fcdlTlK ^' ^rf^^T "^T "^ f^T<T ^ 1^{'^ft} H^R 3TTT^ ^rPT^ '<^Tsf^?T ^P)l^lT ^t f^^l-il W^rft ^t 3m[f^ ^? f^TT HSTT 3TPlRf f^? ^TT^ ^ ^|c||^| ^ ' 3T5TTf^Rr 4 ^ii^sii ^sra? ^ 57RfFT 3TT$?T ^ f^-TT '<TIT^ 3|14p[<t?dl ^t <5^RTPT f^qT 1 ^H ?^K STTq^ ^i^i^ ^ ^fcr ^t^? ^PT^ "^rsrf ^t ^f i^ t^ ^ f^rf ^t Tf'^Fk srRr li§^i^ i

¶32

^. i> "^g^^.^A,^?/^

¶33

^.&y

¶34

3TPT^ vi4^<td ^^T 3T^RT ^^'T'tfk ^RT ^ <fr^l^l^ t HSTT f^ ^TT^ ^TT^ ^R (t>4^1^1 ^^^{'^T} RPkl^l^ ^t ETNT 30(1) ^ 3Rpfn c;u^4l^ t, 3RT: <fr4^ll^ ^^{"^T} RPl^^t ^ft^£TRT 30(2) ^ 3TH^ 3Tm^ f^S cFTP?^TH? 3TRNT ^ ^fSRT 3TT^lT ^TT Rq<ul ^ 3TRt1qT ^T ''qf^T '?fcTVT ^f^ ^f^RT f^TT ^TT ^T t ^Tm 3114<fr1 f^TT ^TKTT t f^ ^T TT^^UT ^' R^ll^n^l ^Tra^{<frl4c||^|} ^T^iiRa t 1

¶35

¶36

"qf^ 3THT ^T 3TRht ^ ^TT^ "^' 3PFTT ^f^i^T H'^T ^RT^{^ni"} ^it ^r^{^ra} ^t ^Tf^r ^ 10 f^iT ^ 3f^ ^' ?TR3T ^cra? Rdl^t^ ^^{'TTE^PT} ^ ^ftu ^Y ^ I^{^rf^} 3ITT PltllRd ^raf^T^{-^'} 3PT-TT cTcTT^ nRr^^T ^f^RT^{'-T^'} 'Sf^ ^ ~E^ ^1^4?^ f^? 3TFret 3TT^ ^rTT^ ^ ^^ "-T^T ^^TT t, ^ 5RT ^ TT^ 3PToft <frl^c||^| lyfii^ ^ ^Ra^"»TFft ^TTI?Tft I"

¶37

(8) It is not in dispute that in the inquiry that was set up for investigating the charges levelled against the respondent, the documents relied upon by the appellant in support of the charges were not supplied to the delinquent employee (respondent^{herein)intheinquiry} proceedings^{andtheinquiry} was completed holding the charges as proved against him and on the basis of such report, the impugned termination order was passed giving rise to its challenge in the writ petition, out of which, this appeal arises. As stated supra, the termination order was set aside by the writ Court by directing the respondent's reinstatement in service with all consequential benefits. This is what the writ Court held in concluding para :

¶38

As an upshot, the writ petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits flowing frora this order.

¶39

'"^^^.

¶40

'^^ , ^

¶41

(9) In this appeal, three questions arise. First whether terminations order was rightly set-aside by the writ Court? Second, whether grant of consequential benefits would also include payment of back wages to the writ petitioner (employee) and if not, then, what orders are required to be passed on such issue and .third, any orders are called for, if the direction to reinstatement issued by the writ Court is upheld?

¶42

(10) Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we are inclined to allow the appeal in part and in consequence, modify the impugned order as indicated infra.

¶43

(11) Coming to the first question posed above, in our opinion, the learned Single Judge on this issue was right and hence, on this question, we are inclined to uphold the finding of the writ Court. The learned Single Judge was right in placing reliance on the decisions of Supreme Court holding the field on this issue. Indeed it is a well settled principle of law that it is incumbent and obligatory upon the employer to supply all such documents which are referred to and relied upon by the employer in supporf of the charges and which are filed in departmental inquiry to prove the charges against the delinquent employee. If this is not done then it amounts to violation of principles of natural justice and the resultant action taken on the basis of such proceedings against the delinquent employee becomes unsustainable in law.

¶44

(12) In this case, it was an admitted position that no document was supplied and hence, termination based on such proceedings was rightly set-aside. We, thus, do not find any good ground to reverse this finding of the writ Court and accordingly, uphold the same. Indeed, the learned counsel for

¶45

'^K^::;^B%.

¶46

¶47

the appellant was also not able to show any kind of perversity or illegality in this finding of the writ Court.

¶48

(13) Coming now to the second question namely whether the direction to reinstate the respondent with award of all consequential benefit would also include the payment of all back wages? In our opinion, "no??. It is for more than one reason.

¶49

¶50

¶51

(14) It is now a settled law that only because the direction to reinstate is ordered by the Courts, it would not automatically include such direction for payment of back wages either in part or full unless specifically ordered with reasons. It is now required to be proved by the employee as also by the employer by leading evidence as to whether employee was during interregnum period working for gains and if so, how much he earned or whether he remained unemployed. This needs a factual inquiry with necessary pleading in the case duly supported by evidence both oral and documentary and then, finding of the Court on. such issue for payment of such backwages whether full or part. So long as an inquiry into this aspect is not undertaken by the Court concerned and any reasoned finding is not recorded, such employee cannot only on the basis of directions to reinstate claim as of right that he be also awarded full back wages payable from the date of termination till the date of its setting aside. A help can be taken from Section 17-B of the Industrial Dispute Act which deals with this issue apart from several decisions of the Courts holding the field to which Section 17-B of the Act in terms does not apply.

¶52

(15) Since in this case, this issue arose out of the writ petition and hence, no evidence could be recorded on this issue and nor any inquiry was held and perhaps could be held and nor any

¶53

"••^-^ .^•':.>'-

¶54

finding was recorded by the writ Court and nor the impugned order contains any specific direction to pay any such back wages to the writ petitioner. In these circumstances, it is not possible for this Court to interpret and construe the impugned directions of the writ Court for holding that the writ Court (learned Single Judge ) also awarded to the writpetitioner entire back wages payable from the date of termination till his reinstatement in senirice. We, thus, hold accordingly in favour ofthe appellant (respondent ofthe writ petition- employer).

¶55

(16) This takes us to the last question. In our opinion, in a situation like the one arising in this case, the appellant(s) is entitled to hold an inquiry against the respondent (writ petitioner) in respect of the charges for which the charge sheet was servred upon him. It is for the reason that if the inquiry was vitiated due to non supply of the documents, then it is a case where inquiry was not properly held due to some defect therein and hence, the employer can be allowed to hold proper departmental inquiry into the same charges by affording full opportunity and supply ofall such documents which are relied upon and referred to in the charges to the employee concerned and record his finding on merits one way or other.

¶56

(17) In this case, we find that the charges levelled against the writ petitioner (respondent) are quite serious in nature and detrimental to the interest of the Bank and if proved on facts and evidence, may result in different consequences against the respondent. It is for this reason, we are of the view and accordingly direct that on respondent being reinstated in service, the appellant pursuant to the order in question, will conclude the departmental inquiry against the respondent which they had initiated by appointing an inquiry officer as per their servrice rules within sbc months from the date of respondent's reinstatement in servrice. Needless to observre the

¶57

^•,'",

¶58

inquiry officer would ensure observance of principles of natural justice by supplying documents relied upon and will also afford adequate opportunity to the respondent.

¶59

h«^.

¶60

(18) Now, so far as the payment of salary in the form of back wages is concerned, since there was an interim stay granted by this Court staying the operation of the impugned direction, despite the direction to reinstate the respondent, he could not be so reinstated and hence, the respondent is now entitled for payment of salary from the date of the impugned order (28.3.2011) till he is reinstated. The amount should be calculated on the basis of pay scale applicable to such employee as on 28.3.2011 onwards. Let him be now reinstated within one month from the date of this order. The amount of salary in the form of compensation be paid to the respondent by the appellant within one month from the date of his joining. (19) We may also mention here that during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the respondent cited one order of Supreme Court- saying that in identical case, the Supreme Court has awarded a compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs to an employee of this very appellant (bank). Suffice it to say, grant of compensation is bound to differ from case to case and hence, the order we have passed takes care of this aspect of the matter also.

¶61

(20) It is with these observations and directions, the appeal succeeds and is allowed in part. The impugned order is modified to the extent indicated above for ensuring compliance.

¶62

Sd/Abhay Manohar Sapre Judge

¶63

Sd/G. Minhajuddin Judge

¶64

shyna

Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Ganesh Ram Chalak

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank v. Ganesh Ram Chalak

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ambika Namdeo and Ors. Vs Awdesh Singh Yadav and Ors.

D.P. Sharaf Vs S.E.C.L. and Anr.

Vs

M/S. J.D.Foods Products Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Mahendra Prakash Patel and Ors. Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.

Smt. Mohani Ganshani Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.