Former bank manager challenged withholding of grade increments and salary forfeiture. The High Court found no violation of natural justice in the de-novo inquiry and held the punishment just, dismissing the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2419/2000 Gauri Lal Dayama V/s. Bhilwara – Ajmer Kshetriya Gramin Bank & Anr.
Date of Order
::: 13.01.2014
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. LOHRA
Mr. P.S. Chundawat, for the petitioner. Mr. M.S. Singhvi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Hemant Dutt for the respondents.
By the instant writ petition, which is a second round of litigation, the petitioner, who is Manager of the respondent-Bank, has assailed the impugned order dated 5th May, 2000 (Annex.7), whereby he was visited with penalty of withholding of four annual grade increments with cumulative effect from the year 1987 and forfeiture of one hundred and sixteen days' salary during suspension.
The facts in brief, giving rise to this petition, are that, while working as Manager under the respondent-Bank, the petitioner was served a memorandum and charge-sheet dated 2nd June, 1987 attributing various misconducts. Pursuant to the memorandum and charge-sheet, reply was submitted by the petitioner and the same was not found to be satisfactory. In these circumstances, the petitioner was subjected to disciplinary inquiry and after conducting the
2
inquiry, the petitioner was indicted for the misconducts, which were attributed to him. The disciplinary authority thereafter, while concurring with the findings of the inquiry officer, passed the punishment order dated 17th July, 1987, whereby four annual grade increments with cumulative effect were withheld and his salary during suspension was forfeited.
Being aggrieved from the order of the disciplinary authority, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Board of Directors of the Bank i.e., the appellate authority and the appellate authority by its order dated 14th September, 1987 rejected the appeal. Assailing the order of disciplinary authority and its subsequent affirmation by the appellate authority, the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court, which was registered as S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.703/1990. The writ petition was finally decided by this Court on 20th July, 1999 and while setting aside the impugned orders, the matter was remanded back for deciding it afresh. The operative portion of the directions contained in order are reproduced as under :-
Thus, in view of the above, the impugned orders of punishment are setaside and the matter is remitted back to the Appellate Authority for proper inquiry. It is for the Appellate Authority to decide the case afresh and pass appropriate order. If any order is passed against the petitioner, the Appellate Authority is directed to pass speaking and reasoned order. Since the matter is an old one, the same may be decided expeditiously and preferably within four months from the date of production of the certified copy of this judgment by the petitioner before
3
respondent-Authority. There shall be no order as to costs.
Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the matter was re-examined by the appellate authority and denovo inquiry was ordered against the petitioner for the same charge-sheet. In the de-novo inquiry, the petitioner has participated and the Inquiry Officer submitted his detailed report on 1st April, 2000, wherein the Inquiry Officer has recorded its finding that most of the charges are found to be proved against the petitioner. The details about the finding of the Inquiry Officer on each charges are as under :-
| Charge No.1 | Found proved in the inquiry |
|---|---|
| Charge No.2 | Portion of charge with regard to indulged in obscene activities was foundpartially proved. |
| Charge No.3 | Partially proved. |
| Charge No.4 | Proved |
| Charge No.5 | Not fully proved |
| Charge No.6 | Proved |
| Charge No.7 | Notproved |
| Charge No.8 | Partially proved. |
| Charge No.9 | Proved |
| Charge No.10. | Proved. |
Copy of the inquiry report was endorsed to the petitioner and his explanation was solicited. The petitioner submitted his reply/explanation. Reply/explanation of the petitioner was considered by the appellate authority as per the direction of this Court, vide order dated 20th July, 1999, and
4
by the impugned order he was penalized and the aforesaid penalty of withholding of four annual grade increments with cumulative effect from 1987 was imposed with forfeiture of salary during suspension.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that during the course of de-novo inquiry, the petitioner was not afforded reasonable opportunity to defend himself, and therefore, the same was in gross violation of principles of natural justice. Mr. Chundawat has further argued that certain documents, which were considered by the Inquiry Officer as incriminating material against the petitioner, were not even proved during the course of inquiry as the authors of those documents were not called for examination by the Inquiry Officer. Learned counsel has also argued that the procedure of the denovo inquiry was not fair and impartial inasmuch as the witnesses, who have deposed against the petitioner during inquiry were influenced at the behest of the Bank administration. Learned counsel has also assailed the impugned order of punishment on the anvil of Wednesbury's principle of Proportionality and urged that the punishment meted out to the petitioner is excessive and disproportionate to the proved delinquency.
Countering the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the respondents, Mr. Dutt, has argued that in adherence of the directions issued by this Court dated 20th July, 1999, de-novo inquiry was
5
conducted against the petitioner in strict adherence of principles of natural justice and the petitioner was given full opportunity to defend himself. Mr. Dutt further submits that the so-called allegation of influencing the witnesses, who have deposed before the Inquiry Officer, is absolutely false and misconceived because the persons named by the petitioner never participated in the inquiry, and therefore, no role can be attributed to them including the role of influencing the departmental witnesses. Mr. Dutt has further argued that in the matter of departmental inquiries principles of natural justice cannot be over-stretched and the requirement is only to adhere to the mandatory provisions of the rules and not directory provisions. While emphasizing the rule of principles of natural justice in departmental inquiry, Mr. Dutt would contend that unless and until delinquent has been able to prove that any prejudice is being caused to him, due to nonadherence of principles of natural justice, the same cannot vitiate the inquiry . Joining the issue with the petitioner on the proportionality of punishment, Mr. Dutt has argued that looking to the delinquency, the punishment meted out to the petitioner is just and proper which calls for no interference.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials on record.
On examining the matter in its entirety in my considered opinion there is nothing on record to show that the de-novo inquiry which was conducted against the petitioner
6
was not in adherence of principles of natural justice. As a matter of fact, the Inquiry Officer has afforded full opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses and to prove his innocence. Coming to the punishment meted out to the petitioner in the light of delinquency attributed to him, in my considered opinion, honesty, integrity and maintaining high moral is an integral part of every employee and when it is with reference to a banker its degree has to be of high magnitude. An officer who is dealing with public money is expected to adhere to higher standards of honesty and integrity. Delinquency which was attributed to the petitioner more particularly indecent behaviour vis-a-vis a lady during odd hours cannot be overlooked. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, looking to the proved delinquency of the petitioner, the punishment meted out is rather just and benevolent which calls for no interference in exercise of extraordinary equitable jurisdiction of this Court.
Thus, viewed from any angle, I do not find any merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
(P.K. LOHRA), J.
a.asopa/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner was denied reasonable opportunity to defend himself during the de-novo departmental inquiry.
Whether the punishment imposed on the petitioner was disproportionate to the proved delinquency.
Gauri Lal Dayama
Bhilwara – Ajmer Kshetriya Gramin Bank
P.K. Lohra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
