Dismissed

Ramesh Chandra Sharma v. State Bank of India

Rajasthan HC19 Jan 2021WRW/41/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur dismissed a review petition filed by a retired bank employee against a dismissal order. The court held the petition was barred by limitation and rejected the merit argument that acquittal in a criminal trial negated guilt admitted in disciplinary proceedings.

What did the court decide?

The review petition is dismissed as barred by limitation and on merits. No order as to costs.

Ramesh Chandra Sharma Vs State Bank of India — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2021)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 41/2020

¶2

Ramesh Chandra Sharma S/o Late Sajanand Sharma, Aged About 59 Years, 34-A Sector-5, Gandhi Nagar, Chittorgarh (Raj.)

¶3

----Petitioner

¶4

Versus

¶5

State Bank of India, (Erstwhile State Bank of Bikaner And Jaipur) Through Its General Manger, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶6

The Assistant General Manager-4, State Bank Of India, Regional Office, Near Collectorate, Chittorgarh.

¶7

The Deputy General Manager, State Bank Of India, Regional Office, Udaipur Anchal, Udaipur.

¶8

The Chief Manager (RCPC), State Bank Of India, Chanderia, Chittorgarh.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Usman Gani

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS

¶12

Order

¶13

19/01/2021

¶14

By way of this petition, the petitioner is seeking review of the order dated 14.3.12 passed by a coordinate Bench, whereby the special appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 8.2.12 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.1047/12, has been dismissed.

¶15

The review petition filed reported to be barred by limitation for 2860 days, is accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay.

¶16

The petitioner, who was working as Head Cashier in the respondent-State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (SBBJ) was dismissed

¶17

(2 of 4)

¶18

[WRW-41/2020]

¶19

from service vide order dated 18.8.11 on the charge of misappropriation of the amount of Rs.36,90,500/- being proved.

¶20

The writ petition preferred by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 8.2.12 noticing that the petitioner had admitted the guilt and accepted before the Disciplinary Authority that the money withdrawn by him from the bank was utilized for purchase of the land. The learned Single Judge noticed that the amount was deposited by the petitioner with the bank, which also indicates towards his guilt. The contention sought to be raised on behalf of the petitioner that the amount was deposited under pressure as the respondents had threatened him with the consequence of lodging FIR if the amount is not deposited, was also rejected by the learned Single Judge.

¶21

The order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition was affirmed by the Division Bench vide order dated 14.3.12 with the observations as under:

¶22

“Indeed firstly on undisputed facts, it is clear that the appellant was responsible for the loss and lapses on his part. He not only admitted the lapses on his part but also deposited the entire money within three days. Secondly, no documents were filed by the either in the writ petition or even in this appeal to show that within three days, he actually sold his immovable property and arranged for the money. This was the best evidence to prove his bonafides that he had not taken away the money from the Bank and because he was pressurised by the bank and hence, he sold his property within three days of the incident and raised the money for being paid to the bank. Thirdly, it is not a case, where he was not afforded of any opportunity of being heard but it is a case where appellant despite affording of the opportunity, failed to avail of the same for the reasons best known to him. His action and activities does not appear to be bonafide in the entire episode else he would have contested the departmental proceeding. It clearly appears that he had no defence nor he had anything to say in the entire incident and

¶23

(3 of 4)

¶24

[WRW-41/2020]

¶25

it was for this reason that he immediately on being caught deposited the entire amount with the Bank.”

¶26

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition as also the order under review passed by the Division Bench proceed on the premise that while admitting the guilt, the amount misappropriated was deposited by the petitioner, which is factually incorrect. Learned counsel submitted that during the preparation of the arguments of the criminal appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of conviction passed by the trial court, it was revealed that the amount was deposited in the bank in cash and the cheques given by the petitioner were not encashed and thus, it cannot be said that the amount was deposited by the petitioner admitting the guilt. Learned counsel submitted that on account of the charge being not proved beyond reasonable doubt, the petitioner has been acquitted of the charges by the Appellate Court. Learned counsel submitted that in view of the aforesaid factual position, the order under review deserves to be revoked and the appeal preferred by the petitioner deserves to be allowed.

¶27

It is pertinent to note that the guilt was admitted by the petitioner not only before the Disciplinary Authority, rather, the factum of admission of guilt and the deposition of the amount with the bank was not even disputed by the petitioner before this Court. To the contrary, the stand taken was that the amount was deposited by him under pressure as the respondent had threatened him of lodging an FIR. The amount being deposited by the petitioner in cash or by cheques does not dilute the factum of admission of guilt in any manner whatsoever. It is well settled that

¶28

(4 of 4)

¶29

[WRW-41/2020]

¶30

the degree of proof required to prove the charge in the criminal trial and the disciplinary proceedings by the employer, is different whereas, in the criminal case, the charge has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt, in the disciplinary proceedings, the charge can be held to be proved on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. Moreover, in the instant case, when the petitioner had admitted the guilt, no further evidence to prove the charge was required.

¶31

In this view of the matter, the review petition filed by the petitioner after about 8 years without explanation of delay, on flimsy ground, deserves to be dismissed as barred by limitation as also on merits.

¶32

Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.

¶33

(RAMESHWAR VYAS),J 11-Aditya/-

¶34

(SANGEET LODHA),J

Ramesh Chandra Sharma v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Chandra Sharma v. State Bank of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajendra Dukiya Vs the State of Rajasthan

Design Plus Architect and Structural Consultant Vs the Jodhpur Development Authority

Nagar Parishad Hanumangarh Vs Indian Oil Corporation Limited

State of Rajasthan Vs Dewa Ram Godara

Sushil Kumar Vs Special District Judge - I (Pong Dam Outees Cases)

Manohar Singh Vs DY.C.I.T.CIRCLE-2,JODHPUR