Anil Gilurker versus Bilaspur Raipur Kshetria Gramin Bank & Anr.

C sanctioned and distributed loans to brick manufacturing units but did not disburse the entire loan amount to the borrowers and misappropriated part of the loan amount - Issuance of charge-sheet - Punishment of removal of service imposed by the disciplinary authority and the same was upheld by the

¶13

D appellate authority- Writ Petition by appellant - Single Judge of the High Court holding that there were no specific charges in the charge-sheet, quashed the order of removal from service and issued direction for reinstatement of the appellant in service with continuity in service - Division Bench of the

¶14

E High Court directed the disciplinary authority to consider the inquiry report, the evidence recorded by the Enquiry Officer and the documents relied upon in the charge-sheet and take a fresh decision in accordance with law - On appeal, held: Charges should be specific, definite and giving details of the

¶15

F incident which formed the basis of charges and no enquiry can be sustained on vague charges - On facts, a plain reading of the charges and the statement of imputations show that only vague allegations were made against the appellant - No statement of imputations giving the particulars of the loan

¶16

G accounts or the names of the borrowers, the amounts of loans sanctioned, disbursed and misappropriated were furnished to the appellant - Thus, the order of the Division Bench is set aside and that of the Single Judge is restored - Direction of the Single Judge to pay Rs. 1.5 lacs to the appellant as

¶17

H

¶18

618

¶19

ANIL GILURKER v. BILASPUR RAIPUR KSHETRIA 619 GRAMIN BANK & ANR.

¶20

compensation in lieu of arrears of salary is deleted. A

¶21

Surath Chandra Chakrabarty v. State of West Bengal (1970) 3 SCC 548: 1971 (3) SCR 1; Sawai Singh v. State of Rajasthan (1986) 3 SCC 454: 1986 (2) SCR 957; Union of India and Ors. v. Gyan Chand Chattar (2009) 12 SCC 78: B 2009 (10 ) SCR 124 - referred to.

¶22

Case Law Reference:

¶23

1971 (3) SCR 1 Referred to Para 4 1986 (2) SCR 957 Referred to Para 4 c 2009 (10) SCR 124 Referred to Para 4

¶24

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 7864-7865 of 2011.

¶25

D _

¶26

From the Judgment & Order dated 28.04.2010 of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Seat at Jabalpur, M.P. Passed in W.A. Nps. 57 and 82 of 2010. _

¶27

Ravindra Shrivastava, Anup Jain, Kunal Verma for the Appellant.

¶28

E

¶29

Akshat Shrivastava, P.P. Singh, Pooja Shrivastava for the Respondents.

¶30

The following order of the Court was delivered by F

¶31

ORDER

¶32

A. K. PATNAIK, J. 1. Leave granted.

¶33

These are appeals against the order dated 28.04.2010 G of the Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court in Writ Appeal No.57 of 2010 and Writ Appeal No.82 of 2010.

¶34

The facts very briefly are that on 03.05.1984 the appellant was appointed as a Branch Manager in the Bilaspur H

¶35

[2011) 12 S.C.R.

¶36

SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶37

620

¶38

A Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank by way of direct recruitment and he successfully completed the period of probation. While he was working on the post of Branch Manager in Branch Patewa, he sanctioned and distributed loans to a large number of brick manufacturing units under the Integrated Gram Development B Programme. The disciplinary authority placed the appellant under suspension and issued a charge-sheet dated 31.01.1989 against him for misconduct punishable under Regulation 30(1) of the Staff Service Regulations. In the chargesheet, it was alleged that the appellant sanctioned and c distributed loans to a large number of brick manufacturing units in a very short period of time, but had not in fact disbursed the entire loan amount to the borrowers and part of the loan amount was misappropriated by him. The appellant was asked to submit his written defence in reply to the charges. On 0^{11.02.1989,the appellant submitted his written defence} denying the allegations made in the charge-sheet. An Inquiry Officer enquired into the charges against the appellant and submitted his report with a finding that the witnesses produced by the Bank had·not said that what was actually advanced was less than the loan amount, and although there were some E serious irregularities, the charge of financial corruption against the appellant had not been proved. The disciplinary authority in his order dated 10.09.1991 disagreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and held that the charge of financial corruption against the appellant had been proved and that the appellant F had not only violated the Rules of the Bank, but had also tried to cause financial loss to the Bank and by abusing his position, had lowered down the reputation of the Bank. In the order dated 10.09.1991, the disciplinary authority proposed to impose the punishment of removal of the appellant along with forfeiture of G the contribution of the Bank to the Provident Fund of the appellant under Section 50(1) of the Staff Regulations. By the order dated 10.09.1991, the disciplinary authority directed that a copy of the order and report of the Inquiry Officer be sent to the appellant to show-cause why he should not be punished as

¶39

H

¶40

ANIL GILURKER v. BILASPUR RAIPUR KSHETRIA 621 GRAMIN BANK & ANR. [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]

¶41

proposed. On 18.09.1991, the appellant submitted his reply to the show-cause notice and on 25.11.1991, the disciplinary authority passed the order of removal. Aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal against the order of the disciplinary authority, but the appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority.

¶42

The appellant then filed a Writ Petition before the Madhya Pradesh High Court challenging the order of removal passed by the disciplinary authority. After the reorganization of the Madhya Pradesh in the year 2000, the Writ Petition was transferred to the Chhattisgarh High Court and was heard by a learned Single Judge of the Chhattisgarh High Court. The learned Single Judge in his judgment dated 22.02.2010 found that in the charge-sheet, there is no reference to any specific documents or to the names of the persons who had not been given the loan amounts and accordingly took the view that in the charge-sheet there were no specific charges. Relying on the decisions of this Court in Surath Chandra Chakrabarty v. State of West Bengal [(1970) 3 SCC 548], Sawai Singh v. State of Rajasthan [(1986) 3 SCC 454] and Union of India & Ors. v. Gyan Chand Chattar ((2009) 12 SCC 78], the learned Single Judge held that when the charges levelled against the delinquent officer in the charge-sheet were vague and not specific and the entire enquiry is vitiated. The learned Single Judge quashed the orders of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority and directed reinstatement of the appellant in service with continuity in service and without loss of seniority in the post to which he would be entitled to. The learned Single Judge further directed that the appellant will be entitled to compensation of Rs.1.5 lacs in lieu of arrears of his salary.

¶43

Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge granting only Rs.1.5 lacs as compensation in lieu of arrears salary, the appellant filed Writ Appeal No.57 of 2010 and aggrieved by the impugned order of learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition quashing the orders of the disciplinary authority

A

8

C

D

E

F

H

[2011] 12 S.C.R.

622 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶53

A and the appellate authority, the respondents filed Writ Appeal No.82 of 2010. After hearing the Writ Appeals, the Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court held in the impugned order that the charges against the appellant as described in the charge-sheet were not vague as on the basis of documents B mentioned in the charge-sheet, it has been alleged that the appellant had sanctioned the loans and had shown the loans only on paper but had not actually disbursed the loans to the borrowers. The Division Bench of the High Court, however, held that as the disciplinary authority had disagreed with the findings c in the inquiry report, ·he should have furnished his reasons for the disagreement to the appellant before passing the order of punishment. The Division Bench of the High Court further held that the disciplinary authority cannot conduct further enquiry suo motu to fill up the lacuna in the enquiry. The Division Bench of 0^{theHighCourt allowedboththe appeals anddirected that the} disciplinary authority will consider the inquiry report, the evidence recorded by the Enquiry OffiC'er and the documents relied upon in the charge-sheet and take a fresh decision in accordance with law. The Division· Bench of the High Court further observed in the impugned order that if the disciplinary E authority takes a view on reconsideration of the matter not to take any further action against the appellant, he shall be given all the consequential benefits along with reinstatement.

¶54

We have heard Mr. Ravindra Shrivastava, learned F counsel for the appellant and Mr. Akshat Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondents, and we are of the considered opinion that the Division Bench of the High Court was not correct in taking a view in the impugned order that the charges against the appellant were not vague. The English translation G of the charges and the statement of imputations extracted from the charge-sheet dated 31.01.1989 served on the appellant is reproduced hereinbelow:

¶55

H

¶56

ANIL GILURKER v. BILASPUR RAIPUR KSHETRIA 623 GRAMIN BANK & ANR. [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]

¶57

Charge Sheet No. D/ . Statementofimputations	A/756 dated 31.1.89 Charge
WhilaworkingasBranch ManagerinBranch Patewa, in the first quarterofthe year 1988, have sanctioned and distributedloanofbrick manufacturinginlarge number underthe Integrated Gram Development Programme by committing unauthorized irregularities contrary to the rules and interestofthe bank and administration.Inmostof these loan cases you have shown cash distributionofthe entire loan and has given only oneminor__partoftheloan amountto-·theBorrowerin cash and from the balance amount,someamount. has been depositedintheir saving accounts (deducting contribution amount equivalent to the amount for closing the loan account) and the remaining amount has been grabbed·byyou.branch employees and in collusions with the Gram Sewaks. After a very little time adjusting the contribution amount in these loanaccounts,youhave withdrawn the amount from the SavingAccountsofthe	Tempted with his malafide intention serious violationof theRulesandinterestsofthe Bank and Administration,in a very short periodoftime sanction the loanofBrick manufacturinginlarge scale under the "I. Gram. Dev. Prog." And distributed and in mostofthe loan cases, without actually distribution ofthe entire loan amount, youhavecompletedthe documentary proceedings, andshowingthecash distributionoftheentir~loan amount, only a minor· share ofthe loan has been given cash totheconcerned borrowerandfromthe remainingamountsome amount has been deposited in theaccountofthe borrower and the balance amountinconnivance with otlierpersons have been grabbed. With the intention tocoverupyour thisact,only after a few timeofthe loan distribution, you have withdrawn the amount from the saving accountsofthe concerned borrowers and

Charge Sheet No. D/
. Statementofimputations

A/756 dated 31.1.89
Charge

WhilaworkingasBranch
ManagerinBranch Patewa, in
the first quarterofthe year
1988, have sanctioned and
distributedloanofbrick
manufacturinginlarge number
underthe Integrated Gram
Development Programme by
committing
unauthorized
irregularities contrary to the
rules and interestofthe bank
and administration.Inmostof
these loan cases you have
shown cash distributionofthe
entire loan and has given only
oneminor__partoftheloan
amountto-·theBorrowerin
cash and from the balance
amount,someamount. has
been depositedintheir saving
accounts
(deducting
contribution amount equivalent
to the amount for closing the
loan
account)
and
the
remaining amount has been
grabbed·byyou.branch
employees and in collusions
with the Gram Sewaks. After a
very little time adjusting the
contribution amount in these
loanaccounts,youhave
withdrawn the amount from the
SavingAccountsofthe

Tempted with his malafide
intention serious violationof
theRulesandinterestsofthe
Bank and Administration,in
a very short periodoftime
sanction the loanofBrick
manufacturinginlarge scale
under the "I. Gram. Dev.
Prog." And distributed and
in mostofthe loan cases,
without actually distribution
ofthe entire loan amount,
youhavecompletedthe
documentary proceedings,
andshowingthecash
distributionoftheentir~loan
amount, only a minor· share
ofthe loan has been given
cash totheconcerned
borrowerandfromthe
remainingamountsome
amount has been deposited
in theaccountofthe
borrower and the balance
amountinconnivance with
otlierpersons have been
grabbed. With the intention
tocoverupyour thisact,only
after a few timeofthe loan
distribution,
you
have
withdrawn the amount from
the saving accountsofthe
concerned borrowers and

A

B

c

D

E

F

G

H

624 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶67

[2011] 12 S.C.R.

¶68

A B c D	concernedborrowers,you have closed mostofthe loan accounts much beforethetime fixed for the repayment.	mostofthe accounts have been closed before time. As suchfor the fulfillment of your personalgainyouhave deliberatelymisusedthe position of your post and has committed financial corruption in largescale. From which cause serious shock the interestsofthe bank administration and the borrower also, the reputation ofthe bank has also been lowered down. Your this act isamisconductunder Sections 17, 19 and 30(1)of the Employees Collection Service Regulations.

¶69

c

¶70

D

¶71

A cplain reading of the charges and the statement of imputations reproduced above would show that only vague E allegations were made against the appellant that he had sanctioned loans to a large number of brick manufacturing units by committing irregularities, but did not disburse the entire loan amount to the borrowers and while a portion of the loan amount was deposited in the account of the borrowers, the balance was F misappropriated by him and others. The details of the loan accounts or the names of the borrowers have not been mentioned in the charges. The amounts of loan which were sanctioned and the amounts which were actually disbursed to the borrowers and the amounts alleged to have been G misappropriated by the appellant have not been mentioned.

¶72

We also find that along with the charge-sheet dated 31.01.1989 no statement of imputations giving the particulars of the loan accounts or the names of the borrowers, the amounts H of loans sanctioned, disbursed and misappropriated were

¶73

ANIL GILURKER v. BILASPUR RAIPUR KSHETRIA 625 GRAMIN BANK & ANR. [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]

¶74

furnished to the appellant, and yet the disciplinary authority has called upon the appellant to submit his written defence statement in reply to the charges. We fail to appreciate how the appellant could have submitted his written statement in defence in respect of the charges and how a fair enquiry could be held unless he was furnished with the particulars of the loan accounts or the names of the borrowers, the amounts of loan sanctioned, the amounts actually disbursed and the amounts misappropriated were also furnished in the charge-sheet.

¶75

A

¶76

8

¶77

As has been held by this Court in Surath Chandra Chakrabarty v. State of West Bengal (supra):

¶78

C

¶79

"5 ...... The grounds on which it is proposed to take action have to be reduced to the form of a definite charge or charges which have to be communicated to the person charged together with a statement of the allegations on which each charge is based and any other circumstance' which it is proposed to be taken into consideration in passing orders has also tQ be stated. This rule embodies a principle which is one of the basic contents of a reasonable or adequate opportunity for defending oneself. If a person is not told clearly and definitely what the allegation~ are on which the charges preferred against him are founded he cannot possibly, by projecting his own imagination, discover all the facts and circumstances that may be in the contemplation of the authorities to be established against him .... ."

¶80

[J

¶81

F-

¶82

This position of law has been reiterated in the recent. case of Union of India & Ors. v. Gyan Chand Chattar (supra) and in Para 35 of the judgment as reported in the sec, this Court has observed that the law can be summarized that an G enquiry is to be conducted against any person giving strict adherence to the statutory provisions and principles of natural justice and the charges should be specific, definite and giving details of the incident which formed the basis of charges and no enquiry can be sustained on vague charges. H

¶83

H

¶84

[2011] 12 S.C.R.

¶85

626 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

¶86

A 11. We, therefore, allow these appeals, set aside the impugned order of the Division Bench and restore the order of the learned Single Judge. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, we delete the direction of the learned Single Judge to pay Rs.1.5 lacs to the appellant as compensation in s lieu of arrears of salary and we are also not inclined to grant any backwages to the appellant. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶87

N.J.

¶88

Appeals allowed.

Anil Gilurker v. Bilaspur Raipur Kshetria Gramin Bank & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Gilurker v. Bilaspur Raipur Kshetria Gramin Bank & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kerala State Housing Board & Ors. versus Kerala State Housing Board, Nellikode Housing Colony Allottees Assn. & Ors.

State of West Bengal and Ors. versus Debasish Mukherjee and Ors.

State of West Bengal versus Howrah Ganatantrik Nagarik Samity & Ors.

Banatwala & Company versus L.L.C. of India & Anr.

Parasamaya Kolerinatha Madam, Tirunelveli versus P. Natesa Achari & Ors.

State of U.P. & Ors. versus M/S Mohan Meakin Breweries Ltd. & Anr.