Remanded

Ramesh Kumar Haldia v. Bank of Baroda and Ors.

Rajasthan HC8 Jan 2019CW/1572/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that the disciplinary authority's order imposing compulsory retirement was legally vitiated as it lacked findings on charges and failed to show application of mind. Considering the petitioner's subsequent exoneration in a criminal CBI case, the matter was remanded for a re-examination and a new speaking order.

What did the court decide?

Matter remanded to Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority to reexamine, give findings on each charge, and pass a speaking order within three months. The impugned orders dated 26.6.99 and 25.1.

Ramesh Kumar Haldia Vs Bank of Baroda and Ors. — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writs No. 1572/2000

Ramesh Kumar Haldia

----Petitioner

Versus

Bank Of Baroda And Ors

¶7

----Respondent

¶8

For Petitioner(s) : Mr.Sandeep Saxena For Respondent(s) : Mr.Rupin Kala

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

¶10

Judgment / Order

¶11

08/01/2019

¶12

The petitioner challenged the order dated 26.6.1999 passed by the Disciplinary Authority whereby he has been punished of compulsory retirement w.e.f. the service of the said order.

¶13

One of the submissions of counsel for the petitioner is that the Disciplinary Authority has failed to give any reason nor has given its finding on any of the article of charges which was required under regulation &(3) of the Regulations governing the Bank.

¶14

I have considered the submission and find that the Disciplinary Authority in its order dated 26.6.1999 has stated as under:

¶15

“3. I have carefully considered the said report dated 31.12.1997 and all records of the inquiry including submissions/representations of Mr.Haldia on findings

¶16

(2 of 4) [CW-1572/2000]

¶17

of Inquiring Authority which was forwarded to Mr.Haldia vide my order No.RZ:VD:785 dated 20.3.1998 for submission of his representation/submission and am of the opinion that all the charges against Mr.R.K.Haldia stand proved.”

¶18

Thus this court find that neither the disciplinary Authority has given its findings of inquiring authority nor it has come to any conclusion. The submission against the enquiry officer has also not been examined. The order has been passed in a typical laconic manner. The Apex Court in Tara Chand Khatri Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi reported in AIR 1977 SC 567 has held that the Disciplinary Authority is required to examine and give its findings in relation to the Article of charges or so on the statement of allegations, and also at that time, consider the representation so made by the concerned delinquent against the enquiry report. Similar view was taken in Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank Vs. Jagdish Sharan Varshney and ors. reported in AIR 2009 SC 3276 wherein it was held as under:

¶19

“8. In our opinion, an order of affirmation need not contain as elaborate reasons as an order of reversal, but that does not mean that the order of affirmation need not contain any reasons whatsoever. In fact, the said decision in Prabhu Dayal Grover’s case (supra) has itself stated that the appellate order should disclose application of mind. Whether there was an application of mind or not can only be disclosed by some reasons, at least in brief, mentioned in the order of the appellate authority. Hence, we cannot accept the proposition that an order of affirmation need not contain any reasons at all. That order must

¶20

(3 of 4)

¶21

[CW-1572/2000]

¶22

contain some reasons, at least in brief, so that one can know whether the appellate authority has applied its mind while affirming the order of the disciplinary authority. The view we are taking was also taken by this court in Divisional Forest Officer Vs. Madhusudan Rao, JT 2008 (2) SC 253 (vide para 19), and in Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India, AIR 1966 SC 671. Siemens Engineering and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. Vs. Union of India, AIR 1976 SC 1785 (vide para 6), etc.

¶23

In the present case, since the appellate authority’s order does not contain any reasons, it does not show any application of mind.”

¶24

Thus, taking into consideration above, I find that the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority stands vitiated in law. Another aspect which has now come on record is that the petitioner has already been exonerated in the criminal case registered against him by the CBI vide judgment dated 6.7.2008.

¶25

Keeping in view above, this court deems it appropriate to remand the matter back to the Disciplinary Authority to reexamine the matter in the light of above observations hereinabove. It is expected of the Disciplinary Authority to give finding on each and every charge leveled as well as give the findings of the report of enquiry Officer and the representation made by the petitioner, and pass speaking order within a period of three months from the date of submission of certified copy of this order. The petitioner would be free to make a fresh representation incorporating the arguments which he may want to take before the Disciplinary Authority. The orders passed by the Disciplinary

¶26

(4 of 4)

¶27

[CW-1572/2000]

¶28

Authority as well as Appellate Authority dated 26.6.99 and 25.1.2000 are accordingly set aside.

¶29