Gujarat High Court
Purushottam Somabhai Vaghela vs Gujarat Staet Seeds Corporation Ltd on 21 January, 2025
Author: Vaibhavi D. Nanavati
Bench: Vaibhavi D. Nanavati
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/9653/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/01/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 9653 of 2011
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
=============================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
=============================================
PURUSHOTTAM SOMABHAI VAGHELA
Versus
GUJARAT STAET SEEDS CORPORATION LTD & ANR.
=============================================
Appearance:
MS SHIVANI BAROT for MR PA JADEJA(3726) for the Petitioner(s) No.
1
MR SHIVANG THACKER for MR AR THACKER(888) for the
Respondent(s) No. 1
RULE SERVED for the Respondent(s) No. 1,2
=============================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI
Date : 21/01/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. By way of present petition, the petitioner herein has prayed for the following reliefs:
"19. The petitioner, therefore, prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other writ, direction of order:
A) Quashing and setting aside the order dt.29.3.2011 reverting the petitioner from the post of Assistant Manager (Audit) to the post of office superintendent, and to reinstate him to the post of Assistant Manager and to pay the arrears with 12% interest.Page 1 of 21 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Wed Feb 12 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 14 23:27:29 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9653/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/01/2025 undefined B) Quashing and setting aside the departmental proceedings initiated vide charge sheet dt.10.5.2010.
C) During the pendency and final disposal of this petition, the order dt.29.3.2011 may be stayed and the petitioner may be allowed to work as Assistant Manager (Audit) D) To grant such and further relief as may be deemed fit and proper.
2. Heard Ms. Shivani Barot, learned advocate appearing for Mr. P.A. Jadeja, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Shivang Thacker, learned advocate appearing with Mr. A.R. Thacker, learned advocate appearing for the respondents.
3. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the impugned orders dated 29.03.2011 imposing major penalty of reversion to the post of Office Superintendent w.e.f. 01.04.2011 and the order passed by the Managing Director dated 12.07.2011 dismissing the appeal; filed challenging the order dated 29.03.2011.
4. The petitioner herein was appointed as Office Superintendent on 22.06.1984 and thereafter, promoted as Assistant Manager (Accounts). Upon departmental proceedings having been initiated against the petitioner herein pursuant to the issuance of chargesheet dated 10.05.2010 with respect to the charge of grave negligence or lack of supervision over his Page 2 of 21 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Wed Feb 12 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 14 23:27:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9653/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/01/2025 undefined subordinates, upon holding full-fledged inquiry, the petitioner herein is reverted to the post of Office Superintendent on 01.04.2011; which is the post the petitioner herein is holding at the time of filing of the present petition. The petitioner herein is superannuated in the year 2013.
4.1 Upon issuance of chargesheet on 10.05.2010 which is duly produced at Annexure - A, the petitioner replied to the same by communication dated 08.06.2010 duly produced at Annexure - B. The Inquiry Officer upon holding inquiry, by Inquiry Report dated 15.11.2010, found the charges proved against the petitioner duly produced at Annexure-C. 4.2 The Managing Director of the respondent - Corporation sent a copy of the Inquiry Report to the petitioner on 02.02.2011 and asked the petitioner to make representation against the Inquiry Report. The petitioner herein made representation on 17.02.2011 pursuant to the aforesaid letter dated 02.02.2011. The said representation was sent by the authorities to the Personal Committee of the Corporation which, in its meeting held on 17.03.2011, decided to impose major penalty of reversion to the post of Office Superintendent w.e.f. 01.04.2011 by impugned order dated 29.03.2011. The Page 3 of 21 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Wed Feb 12 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 14 23:27:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9653/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/01/2025 undefined said order came to be confirmed in appeal by the Managing Director by order dated 12.07.2011. Being aggrieved by the impugned orders passed by the respondent authorities, the petitioner herein has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
5. Ms. Shivani Barot, learned advocate appearing for Mr. P.A. Jadeja, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that the impugned orders are required to be interfered with mainly on the ground that the petitioner herein was serving on the post of Assistant Manager (Accounts). Ms. Barot, learned advocate relied on the reply filed by the petitioner herein dated 08.06.2010 duly produced at page 13, and submitted that the charges levelled against the petitioner are such that the petitioner herein cannot be held responsible for the same.
5.1 Ms. Barot, learned advocate submitted that the petitioner herein time and again informed the competent authority that as the employees against 2 tables were not available, the job- charge of these two tables was required to be assigned as 'Additional Charge' to the existing table 8 employees. Reliance is placed on the communication issued by the co-delinquent Page 4 of 21 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Wed Feb 12 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 14 23:27:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9653/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/01/2025 undefined Mr. Bhavsar. It is submitted that because of insufficient staff, the aforesaid anomalies have occurred.
5.2 It is submitted that the employee having additional charge of Table-8 was unable to meet the requirement of the work at Table-8 and because of that, the pendency mentioned qua the Irregularity had arisen and in view thereof, the petitioner cannot be held to be responsible. What is stated, as an irregularity that the account maintained with State Bank of India needs to be verified on day-to-day basis, is not provided for in the accounting rules. Moreover, expecting that the officers of Accounts Branch who are already assigned additional work-charge would, apart from their day-to-day duties and responsibilities, keep on checking the Bank Account of the corporation online and through such online access, though they could see the withdrawals from the account, they could identify that the underlying cheque was bogus or the signature was forged and they could have detected such an embezzlement is nothing but daydreaming.
5.3 Ms. Barot, learned advocate submitted that upon the incident having occurred for the aforesaid period, the Page 5 of 21 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Wed Feb 12 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 14 23:27:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9653/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/01/2025 undefined petitioner came to know about the same on 01.09.2009 and informed the bank authorities as also, filed an FIR with the Navrangpura Police Station. It was also submitted in the reply that the aforesaid occurred because of non-availability of the sufficient staff more particularly, staff on table No.8. It is submitted that the petitioner herein brought to the notice of the respondent authorities about the modus-operandi and the lack of staff from time to time.
5.4 Placing reliance on the aforesaid submissions, it is submitted that the petitioner herein cannot be held responsible for the loss of the respondent authorities to the tune of Rs.96,78,277/- and that, the petitioner herein cannot be held to have misappropriated the said amount and the punishment imposed by the respondent authorities is required to be interfered with.
5.5 Ms. Barot, learned advocate also relied on the reply filed by the petitioner herein pursuant to the Inquiry Report dated 15.11.2010; upon issuance of Notice to the petitioner on 02.02.2011. The petitioner replied to the same on 17.02.2011 reiterating the aforesaid wherein, it was submitted that it is not the responsibility of the petitioner herein for the loss that has Page 6 of 21 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Wed Feb 12 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 14 23:27:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9653/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/01/2025 undefined occurred to the respondent - Corporation. It is reiterated that the prayers as prayed for in the present petition be allowed.
6. Mr. Shivang Thacker, learned advocate appearing with Mr. A.R. Thacker, learned advocate appearing for the respondents relied on the affidavit-in-reply duly produced at page 69, and at the outset, relied on the Rojkam dated 09.08.2010, which is produced at Annexure - J, page 56-57. It is submitted that after the examination of the witnesses and before submitting the report, it was specifically asked to the petitioner herein that whether the petitioner intends to make any submissions and the same is recorded by the Inquiry Officer in the said Rojkam. The same is also signed by the petitioner having appeared through his next-friend before the Inquiry Officer. It is submitted that the aforesaid contention was never raised by the petitioner herein before the Disciplinary Authority. It is submitted that it is only in the present petition that the aforesaid contention is raised by the petitioner. The aforesaid contention was also not raised before the Appellate Authority.
6.1 Mr. Thacker, learned advocate submitted that the petitioner had been examined before the Inquiry Officer as a Page 7 of 21 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Wed Feb 12 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 14 23:27:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9653/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/01/2025 undefined witness on 09.08.2010 and the aforesaid was suppressed by the petitioner. The next friend had also cross-examined the petitioner in detail and in view thereof, Rule 9(17) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971 is duly complied with. It is submitted that the respondent authority has conducted the disciplinary inquiry in accordance with law and in accordance with the Rules and Regulations. It is submitted that the petitioner herein is imposed the penalty of reversion to the post of Office Superintendent upon the charges levelled against the petitioner having been proved. 6.2 Reliance is placed on the Inquiry Report dated 15.11.2010 duly produced at Annexure - C. Placing reliance on the same, it is submitted that it is held that in the year 2009- 10, Mr. Vaghela showed dereliction towards the duty of carrying out the work of Assistant Manager (Account) assigned to him by the Corporation and he remained negligent directly or indirectly in performance of his duties and in view of the same, the charge regarding breach of showing devotion and integrity at all times on part of each employee as described in Rule-73(1)(B) of Conduct and Appeal Rules of Service Rule, 1981 is being corroborated. It is further held that if both the Page 8 of 21 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Wed Feb 12 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 14 23:27:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9653/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/01/2025 undefined aforesaid delinquent officers would have taken care to complete the work on time by proper allocation of work within available staff, the bank book for the period from 10/06/2009 to 31/08/2009 would have been maintained regularly and bank reconciliation of April-2009 to September-2009 could have been done immediately after completion of the respective month.
6.3. It is submitted that the charges levelled against both the employees are proved and they have accepted that there is some lapse in rendering their services and the same has occurred because of shortage of staff. Placing reliance on the aforesaid submissions, it is submitted that the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is very limited. It is submitted that the decision arrived at by the respondent authority is just and proper and in view thereof, the petition be dismissed.
Analysis:-
7. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties, it emerges that the petitioner herein is appointed as Office Superintendent on 22.06.1984 and Page 9 of 21 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Wed Feb 12 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 14 23:27:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9653/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/01/2025 undefined thereafter, promoted as Assistant Manager (Accounts). Subsequent thereto, the petitioner herein came to be issued chargesheet on 10.05.2010 by the respondent No.2 for holding departmental inquiry with respect to the charge of grave negligence or lack of supervision over the subordinates. The charges levelled against the petitioner herein are as under:
(a) That, during the period from 01.05.2009 to 03.09.2009 when the petitioner was working as Assistant Manager (Accounts), the petitioner had not taken steps for the completion of pending work by his subordinates.
(b) That, from June 2009 to August 2009, the Bank Book was not written.
(c) That, the petitioner had not done online inspection daily in respect of the accounts with the State Bank of India due to which, an amount of Rs.96,78,277/- was misappropriated.
8. This Court has perused the documents that are produced on record, the replies that are filed by the petitioner herein dated 08.06.2010 a reply to the chargesheet duly produced at page 13 and dated 17.02.2011 a reply to the show cause Page 10 of 21 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Wed Feb 12 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 14 23:27:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9653/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/01/2025 undefined notice duly produced at page 36. From perusal of the record, it emerges that the respondent authorities have arrived at the aforesaid conclusion taking into consideration the following:
8.1 It is apposite to refer to the relevant part of the Inquiry Report dated 15.11.2010 which reads thus: (true translation) "2) If day-to-day work of bank reconciliation as well as work pertaining to the fixed deposit would have been maintained by the delinquent in the same manner as it is being looked after by the present Assistant Manager (Accounts) with additional charge, such incident would not have happened. If Mr. Vaghela would have carried out day to day monitoring, the issue that has been created would have come to notice on time and he could have get it resolved by making representation at appropriate level. Mr. Vaghela has contended in his Statement of Defense that he could not get this work completed on time due to lack of competent employee, however, if proper allocation of work and necessary control over the staff would have been maintained by him at the respective time, such incident could have been avoided.
As per the aforesaid details, considering statements of the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of the witnesses, other evidences and Statement of Defense of Mr. Vaghela, it transpires that in the year 2009-10, Mr. Vaghela has showed dereliction towards the duty of carrying out the work of Assistant Manager (Account) assigned to him by the Corporation and he remained negligent directly or indirectly in performance of his duties. In view of the same, the charge regarding breach of showing devotion and integrity at all times on part of each employee as described in Rule-73(1)(B) of Conduct and Appeal Rules of Service Rule, 1981 is being corroborated.
I do not agree with the aforesaid proceedings conducted during the Departmental Inquiry and the conclusion thereof submitted by the presenting officer in his brief, due to reason that, if both the aforesaid delinquent officers would have taken care to complete the work on time by proper allocation of work within available staff, the bank book for the period from 10/06/2009 to 31/08/2009 would have been maintained regularly and bank reconciliation of April-2009 to September-2009 could have been done immediately after completion of the respective month. As stated in the copy of the letter dated 04/09/2009 provided to Mr. Vaghela addressed to Mr. Bhavsar by the Company Secretary cum Manager (Finance), if Mr.Vaghela would have carried out necessary monitoring, being responsible officer, of the Page 11 of 21 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Wed Feb 12 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 14 23:27:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9653/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/01/2025 undefined work of Mr. Bhavsar and if he would have maintained regularity and care in the bank transactions at respective times, the issue of misappropriation/ withdrawal of the Corporation's money through duplicate cheques could have been noticed earlier and on time and the money of the Corporation could have been saved and that delinquent Mr. Rawal was also duty bound to keep such supervision over his subordinate staff, which duty has also not been performed properly by him. When the bank book was not maintained regularly and bank reconciliation was also not done, in such circumstances, if he would have inquired with the State Bank of India by telephone regarding the credit amount of Corporation with the bank, big amount would not have remained in the current account of the Corporation with the bank. However, delinquent Mr. Raval did not take such action. In this manner, Mr. Raval has also committed gross negligence in performing the work assigned to him. In particular, both the accused officers have admitted not only that the work assigned to them by the Corporation was not done on time, but also that the work was not done or completed at that time since the work remained pending due to non-sanction of required competent staff by the Corporation, that is, due to insufficient staff and it is stated that necessary action has been taken for the said pending work only; however, that pending work has been completed by the same staff within three days only after the incident of misappropriation took place. They could have completed the said pending work from the subordinate staff by taking more time instead of three days, but, they have committed default in doing so. Accordingly, in the chapter of this joint inquiry, final conclusion in respect of the charges leveled against both the officers are as under:
CONCLUSION:
(1) Charge leveled against Mr. Khamir M. Raval, Company Secretary
- cum - Manager (Finance) by The Gujarat State Seed Corporation Limited vide O/w. No.Gujrabini/Mahekam-Te-1-5001-03 dated 10/05/2010 is considered as proved.
(2) Charge leveled against Mr. P.S. Vaghela, Assistant Manager (Audit) by The Gujarat State Seed Corporation Limited vide O/w.
No.Gujrabini/Mahekam-Te-1-4998-5000 dated 10/05/2010 is considered as proved.
Sd/- (Illegible) Retired Deputy Secretary & Departmental Inquiry Officer Agriculture and Co-operation Department Government of Gujarat"
9. By the said Inquiry Report, the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved. In light of the aforesaid, the Page 12 of 21 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Wed Feb 12 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 14 23:27:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9653/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/01/2025 undefined respondent authority proceeded to pass the impugned order dated 29.03.2011 duly produced at Annexure - F, page 44. It is apposite to refer to the said order which reads thus:
"Confidential:-
Out.No.Gurabini/Mahekam/Te-1/36580-84/11, Date: 29 Mar 2011.
Preamble:
(1) Charge-sheet submitted to Gurabini/Mahekam/Te-1/4998-
5000/10, from date: 10/05/2010 Mr. P.S. Vaghela, M. Manager (Audit), Guj. State. Bij Corporation Ltd. Gandhinagar. (2) Defense statement dated 08/06/2010 of Mr. Vaghela. (3) Office order No. GuraBiNi/Mahekam/Te-1/1204-10/10 dated 01/07/2010 of the Corporation.
(4) Departmental Inquiry Report dated 15/11/2010 of the Departmental Inquiry Officer.
(5) Resolution of the meeting of the Personnel Committee of the Directors of the Corporation dated 18/01/2011. (6) Letter No. GuraBiNi/Mahekam/Te-1/31930/11. (7) Submission dated 17/02/2011 of Mr. Vaghela against the departmental inquiry report.
(8) Resolution of the meeting of the Personnel Committee of the Directors of the Corporation dated 17/03/2011.
Mr. P.S.Vaghela, at present Assistant Manager (Audit) while performing duty as Assistant Manager (Accounts) at Finance Branch of the Corporation Head Office, Gandhinagar from 01/05/2009 to 03/09/2009, the work at Table-8 of maintaining the Bank book day-to- day and bank reconciliation work which was under control Mr. Vaghela remained pending for the period from 09 April 2009 to August 2009. Despite that, he did not take any action at that time to complete the said work in time. Moreover, as he did not carry out online checking of the account of the corporation at State Bank of India, Gandhinagar on daily basis, misappropriation of Rs. 96,78,277/- was taken place through duplicate cheques. Moreover, the monitoring of the bank account of the corporation was not done by him, therefore a large amount remained there as it is in the current account of the bank. Therefore, charge of dereliction towards duty was leveled against Mr. Vaghela and charge-sheet for awarding major punishment to him was given vide preamble-1. As the statement of defense submitted by Mr. Page 13 of 21 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Wed Feb 12 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 14 23:27:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9653/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/01/2025 undefined Vaghela vide preamble-3 was not admitted, procedure of departmental inquiry was initiated against Mr. Vaghela by appointing Investigating Officer and after completing the procedure of departmental inquiry, the Inquiring Officer submitted recommendation vide the inquiry report that, the charge against Mr. Vaghela is proved. As the said inquiry report was fully admitted vide preamble-5, the copy of inquiry report was sent to Mr. Vaghela vide Preamble-6 and he was given opportunity to make submission against the said report. A meeting of the Personnel Committee of the Directors of the Corporation was held on 17/03/2011 for the details of the submission made by Mr. Vaghela against the inquiry report and all the matters regarding this departmental inquiry case and as the proposal for taking decision regarding appropriate punishment was made in the same, after sufficient discussion over all the matters such as the charge sheet given to Mr. Vaghela, the inquiry report of the Departmental Inquiry Officer and submission of Mr. Vaghela against the inquiry report, the committee has taken decision vide preamble-8 to punish Mr. Vaghela with one of the major punishments specified in Service Rule-66 of the Corporation and order regarding the same is hereby passed as follows.
ORDER The charge made in the departmental inquiry against Mr. P.S.Vaghela, at present Assistant Manager (Audit) is proved. Therefore, out of the major punishments specified in service rule-66 of the Corporation, he is awarded punishment of demotion and placed in the cadre of office superintendent, in the pay band of Rs.9300-34800 of the said cadre plus grade pay of Rs. 4400/-. In addition, his basic pay in this pay scale is decided to be Rs. 9300/- plus Grade Pay of Rs. 4400/-.
(1) This punishment shall be implemented from 01/04/2011. (2) Mr. Vaghela shall be entitled to get annual increment during the period of punishment.
Sd/-(Illegible) Managing Director To, Mr. P.S. Vaghela, M. Manager (Audit) Gujarat State, Seed Corporation, Ltd. Gandhinagar Copy sent to:-
1. The Manager (Finance), Gujarat State, Seed Corporation, Ltd. Gandhinagar
2. The Personnel Secretary of Administrative Director, Gujarat State, Seed Corporation, Ltd. Gandhinagar.
3. Confidential File
4. Service book."
10. The aforesaid order was subject matter of appeal before Page 14 of 21 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Wed Feb 12 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 14 23:27:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9653/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/01/2025 undefined the Managing Director which was dismissed by order dated 12.07.2011.
11. This Court has also considered the contention raised by the petitioner that the respondent authority has failed to apply Rule 9(17) of the Gujarat Civil Services (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1971. On perusal of the affidavit-in-reply duly produced at page 69, the respondent authority has explained the same by referring to the Rojkam dated 09.08.2010 which is produced at Annexure -J, page 56-57 wherein, after the examination of the witnesses and before submitting the report, the Inquiry Officer specifically asked the petitioner herein whether the petitioner want to make any further submissions and that, the same is also recorded by the Inquiry Officer; duly signed by the petitioner herein. The petitioner has also been examined before the Inquiry Officer as witness on 09.08.2010. The said statement dated 09.08.2010 is produced on record. 11.1 This Court has also perused the said document and on perusal of the same, it emerges that the petitioner herein was examined before the Inquiry Officer as witness on 09.08.2010 and that, the next friend had cross examined the petitioner in detail.
Page 15 of 21 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Wed Feb 12 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 14 23:27:29 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9653/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/01/2025 undefined Position of Law:-
12. In Special Civil Application No.20599 of 2007; Oral Order dated 30.11.2021. The said order reads thus:
"1. The present petition has been filed for the following relief:
"(B) Be pleased to issue a writ or mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order, quashing and setting aside impugned order dated 1.2.2005 at Annexure "F"
hereto, passed by respondent No.2 as well as subsequent order dated 2.3.2007 at Annexure "G" hereto, passed by respondent No.1 in the capacity of appellate Board, by which order of dismissal came to be substituted/modified by order of compulsory retirement from service, as both the orders are illegal, illogical, arbitrary, violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and also disproportionate to the charge against the petitioner."
2. As the prayers made in the petition will suggest that the petitioner is challenging the dismissal order dated 01.02.2005 at Annexure-F and the order dated 02.03.2007. A bare perusal of the impugned order reveals that the petitioner is not dismissed from service but he was removed as the word used is "Rukhsad" i.e. removal. The petitioner was served with a charge-sheet on 03.01.2002 inter alia alleging the negligence on his part, which has resulted into misappropriation of Rs.6,00,000/- by one Mr.Palash. A regular departmental inquiry was held and the inquiry officer has submitted his report on 30.11.2002. Ultimately, the show-cause notice came to be issued on 06.01.2003. The petitioner has also submitted his defence statement on 21.01.2003 and by an order dated 01.02.2005, the petitioner came to be removed from service. The aforesaid order of the removal was challenged by the petitioner in an appeal before the Board of Directors and by the order dated 02.03.2007, the Board has set aside the order of penalty of removal and imposed the punishment of compulsory retirement, which is subject matter of challenge before this Court.
3. learned advocate Mr.Majmudar has submitted that the Appellate order is required to be quashed and set aside since the Managing Director was one of the members of the Board, which had decided the appeal of the petitioner. He has submitted that the nature of duty of the petitioner was to the effect only to prepare bills or vouchers, which are sanctioned by the higher officers and payments have been made as per the bills or vouchers by Mr.Palash, who was discharging his duty as cashier. No further submissions are advanced by the learned advocate Mr.Majmudar.
Page 16 of 21 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Wed Feb 12 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 14 23:27:29 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9653/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/01/2025 undefined
4. Per contra, learned advocate Mr.Thacker has submitted that as per the Disciplinary Appeal Rules of the respondent-Corporation, the Managing Director is the authority, who can impose the penalty to Class-III and Class-IV employees under the provision of Rule 67 since he is appointing them under Rule 12. With regard to contention of participation of the Managing Director, while deciding the appeal, learned advocate has placed reliance on his affidavit and has submitted that in fact the initial order was passed by the Managing Director Mr.B.R.Shah, and he did not participate in the committee, which considered the appeal and one Dr.S.R.Chaudhary, Managing Director had participated, while deciding the appeal. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on Rule 17 of the Disciplinary Appeal Rules, which empowers the Managing Director to be a part of the committee, which has to take decision on the appeal of the delinquent. Further reliance is placed by him on the decision of the Apex Court in the cases of Lalit Popli Vs Canara Bank and Ors., (2003) 3 S.C.C. 583, Government of Andhra Pradesh and A.K.Ganguly Vs. P.Chandra Mouli and Anr., (2009) 13 S.C.C. 272 and Boloram Bordoloi Vs. Lakhimi Gaolia Bank and Ors., (2021) 3 S.C.C. 806 for the proposition of law that the judicial review in the matters of departmental proceedings is very limited and the Courts ordinarily do not interfere unless it is found that inquiry proceedings or punishment is vitiated due to non-observance of the relevant principles of natural justice. He has submitted that in fact the petitioner has not alleged any of these points and hence, the impugned award of the punishment may not be interfered since the punishment has been lowered from removal to compulsory retirement.
5. The petitioner is also challenging the order dated 02.03.2007 passed by the respondent authority, whereby his punishment of removal is converted to compulsory retirement by invoking Rule 66 of the Disciplinary Appeal Rules of the respondent-Corporation. This Court has perused the entire memo of the petition from page No.1 to 31 including the prayer clause. A perusal of the same reveals that the petition is absolutely silent with regard to provision of Rules and Regulations. The petitioner has neither stated that under which provision of law/rules/regulation the disciplinary proceedings are held nor the violation of such rules or regulations is mentioned. The petition is also silent with regard to provision of rules and regulations, under which the penalty order is passed.
6. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank and Ors. Vs. P.C.Kakkar, (2003) 4 S.C.C. 364, wherein the Apex Court has held that the scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in decision-making process and not the decision.
7. In the case of Union of India and Ors. Vs. P. Chandra Mouli and Ors., (2003) 10 S.C.C. 196, the Apex Court has observed that it is well settled that once the charge against a delinquent is established, the quantum of punishment is for the employer to decide and the Court ordinarily would not interfere with the order on the quantum of punishment once the Court comes to a conclusion that there has been Page 17 of 21 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Wed Feb 12 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 14 23:27:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9653/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/01/2025 undefined no infirmity with the procedure.
8. The Apex Court in the case of Government of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. Vs. P. Chandra Mouli and Anr.(supra) has observed thus:
"14. It is trite that the power of punishment to an employee is within the discretion of the employer and ordinarily the courts do not interfere, unless it is found that either the enquiry, proceedings or punishment is vitiated because of non-observance of the relevant rules and regulations or principles of natural justice or denial of reasonable opportunity to defend etc. or that the punishment is totality disproportionate to the proved misconduct of an employee. All these principles have been highlighted in Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. v. Ashok Kumar Arora and Lalit Popli v. Canara Bank, SCC pp. 77-78, para 20."
9. Thus, since the petitioner has not challenged the punishment order nor any contention has raised before this Court with regard to violation of any of the rules or regulation or principles of natural justice or denial of reasonable opportunity to defend etc., the punishment order cannot be said totally disproportionate to the proved misconduct as the same has been reduced by the Appellate authority from removal to compulsory retirement.
10. With regard to the contention of participation of the Managing Director in the Committee, while deciding the appeal of the petitioner, it is not disputed that the Managing Director, who passed the order of removal dated 01.05.2005 i.e. Mr.B.R.Shah was not the part of the Committee, which decided the appeal of the petitioner, but one Dr.S.R.Chaudhary was the member of the Committee. Thus, the Appellate order dated 02.03.2007 cannot be declared as void since the Managing Director, who passed the removal order was not the part of the Appellate Committee. Moreover, Rule 17 of the Discipline and Appeal Rules stipulates Managing Director as one of the member of the Appellate Committee. The petitioner has not challenged the said Rule.
11. Under the circumstances, the writ petition fails. Rule is discharged."
12.1 In case of Boloram Bordoloi Vs. Lakhimi Gaolia Bank & Ors., reported in (2021) 3 SCC 806. Relevant paragraph of the said decision read thus:
"13. The manager of a bank plays a vital role in managing the affairs of the bank. A bank officer/employee deals with the public money. The nature of his work demands vigilance with the inbuilt requirement to act carefully. If an officer/employee of the bank is allowed to act beyond his authority, the discipline of the bank will disappear. When Page 18 of 21 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Wed Feb 12 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 14 23:27:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9653/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/01/2025 undefined the procedural guidelines are issued for grant of loans, officers/employees are required to follow the same meticulously and any deviation will lead to erosion of public trust on the banks. If the manager of a bank indulges in such misconduct, which is evident from the charge memo dated 18.06.2004 and the findings of the enquiry officer, it indicates that such charges are grave and serious. Inspite of proved misconduct on such serious charges, disciplinary authority itself was liberal in imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement. In that view of the matter, it cannot be said that the punishment imposed in the disciplinary proceedings on the appellant, is disproportionate to the gravity of charges. As such, this submission of the learned counsel for the appellant also cannot be accepted."
13. In line with the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, as referred above, the petitioner was holding the post of Assistant Manager (Accounts) in the respondent - Corporation wherein, in the course of service, the petitioner came to be issued chargesheet on 10.05.2010; the said charges having been produced in paragraph 7 herein above. The respondent authority conducted the departmental proceedings in accordance with the rules and regulations and upon following cardinal principles of natural justice, holding the charges proved against the petitioner in light of the following:
(a) Though the petitioner herein was performing duty as Assistant Manager (Accounts) at Finance Branch of the Corporation Head Office, Gandhinagar from 01.05.2009 to 03.09.2009, the work at Table No.8 of maintaining the Bank Book day to day and the bank reconciliation work, which was under the control of the petitioner for the said period, the said Page 19 of 21 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Wed Feb 12 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 14 23:27:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9653/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/01/2025 undefined work was not completed by the petitioner in time.
(b) The petitioner failed to carry out any online checking of the account of the Corporation at State Bank of India, Gandhinagar on daily basis, which resulted in misappropriation of Rs.96,78,277/- through duplicate cheques. The monitoring of the bank account of the respondent Corporation was undertaken by the petitioner and therefore, large amount remained as it is in the current account of the bank. 13.1 In light of the aforesaid, the petitioner herein is held to have derelicted in his duty which resulted in awarding major punishment under Rule 66 of the respondent Corporation of demotion and placed in the cadre of Office Superintendent in the pay band of Rs.9300-34800 of the said cadre plus grade pay of Rs.4400/-. In addition to his basic pay in this pay scale, it was decided to be Rs.9300/- plus grade pay of Rs.4400/-. 13.2 The aforesaid is the findings of fact arrived at by the competent authorities concurrently which, in the opinion of this Court, requires no interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In absence of any procedural lapse and the decision having been arrived at upon considering the Page 20 of 21 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Wed Feb 12 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 14 23:27:29 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/SCA/9653/2011 JUDGMENT DATED: 21/01/2025 undefined documents on record and upon granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner herein, no case is made out to exercise extra- ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The impugned punishment is imposed considering the gravity of the charges levelled against the petitioner having been proved and in view thereof also, this Court is not inclined to intervene with the respect to the quantum of punishment awarded to the petitioner herein. Further, this Court is not inclined to sit in appeal over the findings arrived at by the disciplinary authority upon following the principles of natural justice and upon conducting a full fledged inquiry, which require no interference.
14. For the foregoing reasons, the present petition is dismissed. Rule is discharged.
(VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI,J) NEHA Page 21 of 21 Uploaded by NEHA PRAJAPATI(HC01404) on Wed Feb 12 2025 Downloaded on : Fri Feb 14 23:27:29 IST 2025