Allowed

Naresh Kumar Verma v. National Bank of Agriculture and

Patna HC23 Apr 2013CWJC/2736/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging a punitive downgrading and withdrawal of benefits, the Patna High Court set aside a cryptic appellate order that rejected an appeal without reasons, holding that the appellate authority, who did not participate in the Board session, failed to apply independent mind.

What did the court decide?

Impugned appellate order dated 23 January 2009 set aside and matter remitted to prescribed appellate authority for consideration afresh by a reasoned and speaking order within six months.

Naresh Kumar Verma Vs National Bank of Agriculture and — Service and Employment | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2736 of 2006

¶3

====================================================== Naresh Kumar Verma, Deputy General Manager (Retired) S/o late R.L. Verma, R/o Road No. 4 Chitragupta Nagar, Sidheshwar Path, P.O.- Lohia Nagar, Patna

¶4

.... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. National Bank of Agriculture and Rural Development Head Office, Plot No. C-24, „G‟ Block Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai through its Chairman 2. Chairman, N.A.B.A.R.D., Head Office, Plot No. C-24 „G‟, Block Kurla Complex, Bandra (East) Mumbai. 3. The Chief General Manager, Central Vigilance Cell, National Bank of Agriculture and Rural Development, Head Office Mumbai. 4. Deputy Chief Vigilance Cell, National Bank of Agriculture and Rural Development, Head Office, Mumbai 5. Chief General Manager, N.A.B.A.R.D. Regional Office, Maurya Lok, Patna. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sujeet Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Sanjeet Kumar, Advocate

¶5

.... .... Respondent/s

¶6

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER

¶7

8 23-04-2013 Heard the parties.

¶8

The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing the validity and correctness of the order dated 1st January 2004 passed by the Chairperson of the respondent-National Bank For Agriculture and Rural Development, Mumbai ( in short NABARD), communicated through office order dated 3rd January 2004 (Annexure-1) issued under the signature of the respondent-Chief General Manager (HRMD), inflicting upon him the punishment of downgrading by two stages in the incremental scale, as also withdrawing certain

¶9

Patna High Court CWJC No.2736 of 2006 (8) dt.23-04-2013

¶10

2/6

¶11

benefits, which were admissible to the petitioner, as indicated in the said order, as also the appellate order dated 23rd January 2009 (Annexure 22), whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the impugned original order of punishment has been rejected.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was subjected to a disciplinary proceeding. He was issued a chargesheet dated 17th June 2003. Article of charges were served upon him. The petitioner submitted his written statement of defence denying the charges of misconduct attributed to him. In view of denial of the articles of charges, an Enquiry Officer as also a Presenting Officer was appointed for holding enquiry with respect to the articles of charges framed against the petitioner. On conclusion of the departmental enquiry, Enquiry Officer submitted his report dated 20th November 2003 with a finding that all the three charges framed against the petitioner were found to have been proved. Thereafter, a copy of the enquiry report was served upon the petitioner, and he was asked to offer his comment with respect to the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer. Finally, by the impugned order dated 1st January 2004 passed by the competent authority in exercise of powers under Rule 47 (1) (c ) of National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development (Staff)

¶13

Patna High Court CWJC No.2736 of 2006 (8) dt.23-04-2013

¶14

3/6

¶15

Rules 1982, he has been visited on with punishment of downgrading by two stages in the incremental scale of pay. Besides that, certain other benefits granted to the petitioner earlier were also withdrawn from the date of the impugned final order.

¶16

It is further submitted that the petitioner, being aggrieved by the impugned original order of punishment, preferred an appeal before the prescribed appellate authority, but the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been mechanically rejected by a resolution/order dated 23rd January 2009 (Annexure-22) without disclosing any reason for rejection of his appeal

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that the impugned order of punishment passed against the petitioner by the competent authority suffers from various illegalities, and therefore, it is required to be reconsidered. He next submits that the petitioner had raised several points before the appellate authority with respect to the impugned original order of punishment, but neither independent mind has been applied by the prescribed appellate authority nor the issues raised on behalf of the petitioner in the appeal have at all been considered. Therefore, according to him, for complete non-application of mind by the prescribed appellate authority, the impugned appellate order dated 23rd January 2009 (Annexure-22) is fit to be set aside by this

¶18

Patna High Court CWJC No.2736 of 2006 (8) dt.23-04-2013

¶19

4/6

¶20

Court.

¶21

Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the prayer by making reference to the averments made in the counter affidavit filed on their behalf. He submits that in compliance of the order dated 4.3.2013 passed by this Court a supplementary counter affidavit on behalf of the respondent nos.1 to 5 has been filed on 11th March 2013, wherein deliberation of the proceeding dated 23rd January 2009 has been brought on record as Annexure-R/4. It is contended that in impugned appellate order (Annexure-22) communicated through letter dated 27th March, 2009 (Annexure21) reason has not been disclosed, but in the deliberation of the Board of Directors dated 23rd January 2009 (Annexure- R/4) reasons have been recorded for dismissal of the appeal of the petitioner. Therefore, according to him, the appellate order dated 23^rd January, 2009(Annexure-22) cannot be faulted.

¶22

After having heard the parties and on consideration of the materials available on record, this Court is of the opinion that at this stage the present writ petition can be disposed of on a very short question. The appeal preferred by the petitioner against the impugned original order of punishment has been rejected by a most cryptic order as contained in Annexure-22. From perusal of Annexure-R/4 i.e. the proceeding of the meeting of the Board of

¶23

Patna High Court CWJC No.2736 of 2006 (8) dt.23-04-2013

¶24

5/6

¶25

Directors of NABARD held on 23rd January 2009, this Court finds that it has been recorded in paragraph 58 that “Chairman, being the appellate authority, did not participate in the discussion, Dr. K.G. Karmakar, Managing Director chaired the discussions” From the proceeding dated 23rd January 2009 itself it appears that the appellate authority did not participate in the discussion. If that being the case, then on the basis of the reasons recorded in Annexure-R/4, the appeal preferred by the petitioner could not have been rejected by the impugned appellate order dated 23rd January 2009 (Annexure-22), which is ex facie very cryptic and non-speaking

¶26

This Court is of the opinion that the appeal is continuation of the original proceeding. If the petitioner has been found guilty by the disciplinary authority/competent authority and he preferred an appeal against the impugned original order of punishment, then the appellate authority was required to apply its independent mind to all the issues raised on behalf of the petitioner, and only thereafter, appeal preferred by the petitioner could have been disposed of by a reasoned and speaking order. From perusal of the impugned appellate order, as contained in Annexure-22 and communicated by letter dated 27.3.2009 vide Annexure-21, this Court finds that no reason at all has been

¶27

Patna High Court CWJC No.2736 of 2006 (8) dt.23-04-2013

¶28

6/6

¶29

disclosed in the aforesaid impugned appellate order for rejecting the pleas of the petitioner.

¶30

For the reasons recorded above, the impugned appellate order dated 23rd January 2009 (Annexure-22) is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the prescribed appellate authority to consider and decide the appeal of the petitioner afresh by a reasoned and speaking order. The prescribed appellate authority, while deciding the appeal of the petitioner afresh, shall be obliged to consider all the points raised on behalf of the petitioner and shall further be obliged to dispose of the appeal by a reasoned and speaking order. The appellate authority shall make all endeavours to dispose of the appeal of the petitioner afresh within a maximum period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

¶31

In the result, this writ petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. The parties are left to bear their own costs.

¶32

(Birendra Prasad Verma, J)

¶33

RPS/-

Naresh Kumar Verma v. National Bank of Agriculture and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Naresh Kumar Verma v. National Bank of Agriculture and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shyam Bihari Bhatt Vs the State of Bihar and Anr.

Ram Bilash Prasad Vs State of Bihar and Ors.

Parmeshwar Prasad Singh and Anr. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Rajendra Deo Vs the Bihar State Electricity Bo

Savita Devi and Anr. Vs the Punjab National Bank and Ors.

Chandan Kumar Vs The Union Of India and Ors.