Gujarat High Court Case Information System
Print
SCA/2754/1994 6/ 6 JUDGMENT
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
SPECIAL
CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2754 of 1994
For
Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
=========================================================
1
Whether
Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?
2
To be
referred to the Reporter or not ?
3
Whether
their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ?
4
Whether
this case involves a substantial question of law as to the
interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order
made thereunder ?
5
Whether
it is to be circulated to the civil judge ?
=========================================================
G
R PARMAR - Petitioner(s)
Versus
H
C JAIN & 2 - Respondent(s)
=========================================================
Appearance
:
MR
IS SUPEHIA for
Petitioner(s) : 1,
MR SV RAJU for Respondent(s) : 1,
RULE
UNSERVED for Respondent(s) : 2,
RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) :
3,
=========================================================
CORAM
:
HONOURABLE
MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI
Date
: 02/03/2010
ORAL
JUDGMENT
1. Petitioner
is aggrieved by an order dated 16.11.1992 passed by the Disciplinary
Authority by which the petitioner has been awarded a penalty of
reduction of salary by one stage in time scale of pay.
2. Petitioner
was employed with Punjab National Bank. For certain alleged
misconducts, he was issued a charge-sheet dated 26.12.1989. It was a
charge against him that he acted negligently in discharge of his
duties. In statement of imputation of charge, it is stated that
petitioner had enhanced the sanction limits, of lending, of certain
customers of the bank despite following deficiencies
a) The
past conduct of the a/c was not satisfactory e.g. the
credit summations for the year 1987 was only Rs.49,584/-.
b) The
party’s integrity was in doubt e.g. there was shortage of stock in
1986 and the party intentionally withheld details of assets, which
they reportedly held, in the CR of 1982.
c) The
party did not fulfill requirements like maintenance of
stock register, routing the business through a/c etc.
d) The
a/c had not been renewed for the last 5 years.
e) The
party was also processing materials of others on contract basis and
it was not possible to ascertain whether the entire stocks belongs to
them or whether any unpaid stock is lying, as party was neither
maintaining stock register nor invoices/bills.
3. It
was therefore stated that petitioner had advanced monies where
recovery was doubtful and thereby committed the said misconduct.
4. Petitioner
resisted the charge. Inquiry was conducted. Inquiry Officer
submitted his report which was supplied to the petitioner. He was
allowed to make his representation, which he did. Disciplinary
Authority eventually passed impugned order on 16.11.1992.
5. Counsel
for the petitioner raised following contentions in support of the
challenge.
That
mandatory requirement under Regulation 6(17) of Punjab National Bank
Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1977 (herein
after to be referred to as ‘the Regulations’) was not followed.
That
his representation was not taken into account by the Disciplinary
Authority.
6. Counsel
for the petitioner placed reliance on Division Bench decision of this
Court dated 18.05.2005/21.10.2005 in Letters
Patent Appeal No. 1798 of 2004 in Special Civil Application No.11076
of 1994, wherein it is observed as under
An
analysis of the above reproduced portions of the judgment of the
Constitution Bench shows that the Supreme Court has in no uncertain
terms recognised the importance of the right available to the
delinquent employee to make representation not only against the
procedure adopted by the inquiry officer but also the merits of the
findings recorded by him and the disciplinary authority, if any, by
disagreeing with the findings of Inquiry Officer. It is open to the
delinquent to show that the inquiry was not held in accordance with
relevant statutory rules, that he was not given full opportunity of
defence and that the findings recorded by the inquiry officer are not
supported by legally admissible evidence or that the finding on any
particular charge is based on no evidence. If the disciplinary
authority disagrees with the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer
on one or more than one charges and reasons for disagreement are
communicated to the delinquent, then he can show that such reasons
are legally unsustainable or that tentative finding recorded by the
disciplinary authority is not supported by evidence or that the
disciplinary authority has ignored the material evidence. On receipt
of the representation of the delinquent, the disci-plinary authority
gets an opportunity to consider the objections and the plea taken by
him and then decide whether or not the same have merit. It is,
therefore, imperative for the disciplinary authority to record
reasons, howsoever briefly, indicating an objective application of
mind to the points taken by the delinquent in his
reply/representation. Such application of mind has to be reflected
in the ultimate order to be passed by the disciplinary authority.
This is the only way in which the disciplinary authority can comply
with the requirement of passing of a speaking order. Indeed, it has
neither been suggested before us nor the Assistant Government Pleader
argued that while imposing punishment on a delinquent the
disciplinary authority does not discharge quasi judicial function.
7. With
respect to the first contention, the Regulation 6(17) need to be
noted.
(17)
The Inquiring authority may, after the officer employee closes his
evidence, and shall, if the officer employee has not got himself
examined generally question him on the circumstances appearing
against him in the evidence for the purpose of enabling the officer
employee to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence
against him.
8. It
is the case of the petitioner that though required under the said
Regulation, he was not questioned by the Inquiry Officer as
petitioner had not examined himself during the inquiry. Counsel for
the bank, however, drew my attention to the Inquiry Officer’s report
wherein he has recorded as under
The
entire proceedings are on documentary evidence. Neither the
prosecution side nor the defence side like to produce oral evidence.
The charge sheet employee also did not like to give his statement.
9. It
can thus be seen that the petitioner himself had not permitted any
such questioning. He did not prefer to give any statement. In his
representation before the Disciplinary Authority against the inquiry
officer’s report, though he has raised the contention that procedure
under Regulation 6(17) was not followed, he has not disputed the
above factual recording of the inquiry officer. In absence of any
challenge to such a finding, I have no choice but to accept the same
as true. If that be the situation, the petitioner having refused to
give any statement under Regulation 6(17), it cannot be held that the
inquiry officer did not follow the procedure laid down thereunder.
10. With
respect to consideration of the representation of the petitioner by
the Disciplinary Authority, the Authority has in the impugned order
itself narrated that I have gone through the entire records,
including finding of the inquiry officer and other relevant
documents. There is nothing on record to suggest that the said
observation is incorrect. It was not necessary for the Disciplinary
Authority to refer to each and every contention and sub-contention of
the petitioner even though he was agreeing with the inquiry officer’s
finding.
11. Further,
I find that the charges were borne out from documentary evidence on
record. Such documents are not seriously in dispute. Findings are
based on admitted and undisputable documents. Once the allegations
in the charge-sheet are established, it was thereafter upto the
disciplinary authority to come to appropriate finding whether the
petitioner could be stated to have committed the said misconduct.
Petitioner was admittedly holding a senior position in a bank. He
had made advances to certain customers which advances were not
supported by proper security etc.. Recovery thereof had thus become
doubtful. If these charges are approved, surely the bank is right in
coming to the conclusion that petitioner had acted delinquently in
discharge of his duties.
12. No
further contentions have been raised.
13.
In the result, I find no merits in the petition, same is therefore
dismissed. Rule is discharged.
(Akil
Kureshi, J.)
menon
Top