Allahabad High Court
Devendra Yadav vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 4 April, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:47328
Court No. - 49 Reserved
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14482 of 2020
Petitioner :- Devendra Yadav
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Lal,Nisheeth Yadav, Uday Pratap Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- A.K.S.Parihar,C.S.C.,Satyam Singh, Sujeet Kumar Rai
Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.
1. This writ petition is directed against the order passed by the Secretary/ Chief Executive Officer, District Cooperative Bank Limited, Banda dated 30.09.2020, dismissing the petitioner from service after holding disciplinary proceedings.
2. The petitioner was appointed as a Junior Branch Manager at the District Cooperative Bank Limited, Banda (for short, 'the Bank'), after selection in accordance with Rules by the Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Institutional Service Board, Lucknow (for short, 'the Board'). He was appointed as aforesaid on 14.03.2016 and posted at the Atarra Branch of the Bank. The petitioner was then transferred to the Main Branch and finally to the Badausa Branch. The petitioner says that during the short period of his service, he worked with dedication, discipline and integrity to the satisfaction of his superiors. It is common ground between parties that the service conditions of the petitioner are governed by the Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Employees Service Regulations, 1975 (for short, 'the Regulations') framed under Section 122(2) of the Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 (for short, 'the Act of 1965'). The petitioner was placed under suspension pending inquiry vide order dated 26.07.2018 passed by the Secretary of the Board, on allegations to the effect that the petitioner was not distributing loans to farmers despite instructions to that effect, issued by the Secretary/ Chief Executive Officer of the Board to the Branch Manager of the Badausa Branch. It was also said in the order of suspension that the behaviour of the petitioner towards the customers was not good and he would disobey orders issued by the Headquarters of the Bank. In addition, it was also alleged that the petitioner misbehaved with the 'Mananiya Sanchalak'.
3. The petitioner was served with a charge-sheet on 22.10.2018, arraigning him on eight counts. The charge-sheet was issued by the Inquiry Officer/ Deputy General Manager of the Bank on 22.10.2018. These charges, together with the evidence cited, read:
"आरोप संख्या 1- आप पर आरोप है कि, दिनांक-26.07.2018 को डढ़वामानपुर समिति के अधिकांश सदस्य अंश 'क' ऋण वितरण हेतु शाखा आये थे, किन्तु आप द्वारा ऋण वितरण नहीं किया गया, जबकि सचिव मुख्य कार्यपालक अधिकारी द्वारा दूरभाष पर ऋण वितरण के निर्देश भी दिये गये थे। आप द्वारा डढ़वामानपुर समिति के सदस्यों को दिनांक-01.04.2018 से दिनांक-26.07.2018 तक एक भी अंश 'क' ऋण वितरण नहीं किया गया। दिनांक-27.07.2018 से दिनांक-07.08.2018 तक प्रभारी शाखा प्रबन्धक श्री गुलाब बाबू द्वारा बड़ी जोत के 31 सदस्यों को रु0 11.85 लाख तथा छोटी जोत के 32 सदस्यों को रु0 8.86 लाख ऋण वितरण किया गया है।
अतः आपको बैंक मुख्यालय के उच्चाधिकारियों के निर्देशों की अवहेलना कर, समिति के कृषकों को अंश 'क' ऋण वितरण न करने हेतु आरोपित किया जाता है।
साक्ष्य:- शाखा-बदौसा के सहयोगी, लिपिक, प्रभारी शाखा प्रबन्धक एवं डढ़वामानपुर समिति के कृषकों के लिखित बयान तथा बड़ी जोत व छोटी जोत के एकाउण्ट स्टेटमेण्ट की छायाप्रति।
आरोप संख्या 2- आप पर आरोप है कि दिनांक-18.07.2018 को बदौसा समिति के सदस्य श्री दिलीप कुमार पुत्र श्री मेवालाल निवासी-महुरा को रू0 37,000.00 (सैंतीस हजार रु0) अंश 'क' ऋण दिया गया है। खाते में प्रविष्टिकर्ता एवं जांचकर्ता के हस्ताक्षर नहीं है, ऋण पत्रावली शाखा प्रबन्धक द्वारा स्वीकृत नहीं की गयी है। वितरित अंश 'क' स्काल व चेक में भी आपके हस्ताक्षर नहीं है।
अतः शाखा में बिना ऋण पत्रावली स्वीकृत किये ऋण बांटने, ऋण लेजर, वितरित अंश 'क' स्काल, व चेक में हस्ताक्षर न करने हेतु आपको आरोपित किया जाता है।
साक्ष्यः- सदस्य श्री दिलीप कुमार के लेजर, वितरित अंश 'क' स्काल, चेक व ऋण सीमा पत्रावली की छायाप्रति।
आरोप संख्या 3- आप पर आरोप है कि, आप द्वारा टी0डी0आर0 खाता जी0एल0 कोड 140 में प्रथम क्वार्टर के अन्त में दिनांक-30.06.2018 का ब्याज नही लगाया गया है, जबकि प्रत्येक क्वार्टर में टी0डी0आर0 खाते में ब्याज लगाया जाना चाहिए।
अतः शाखा में टी0डी0आर0 खाता जी0एल0 कोड 140 में, प्रथम क्वार्टर के अन्त में, दिनांक-30.06.2018 का ब्याज न लगाने हेतु, आपको आरोपित किया जाता है।
साक्ष्य:- टी0डी0आर0 खाता सं0-140/502 एवं 140/520 के एकाउण्ट स्टेटमेण्ट की छायाप्रति।
आरोप संख्या 4- आप पर आरोप है कि, आप द्वारा वे0भो0 समिति जी0एल0 कोड 840 में मासिक आधार पर, ब्याज नही लगाया गया है, जबकि वे0 भो0 समिति जी0एल0 कोड 840 में मासिक आधार पर ब्याज लगाया जाना चाहिए।
अतः शाखा में वे0भो0 समिति जी0एल0 कोड 840 में मासिक आधार पर ब्याज न लगाने हेतु आपको आरोपित किया जाता है।
साक्ष्य:- वेoभो0 समिति खाता सं0-840 / 1 के एकाउण्ट स्टेटमेण्ट की छायाप्रति।
आरोप संख्या 5- आप पर आरोप है कि आप द्वारा सण्ड्री लाईबिल्टीज जी0एल0 कोड 415 में खाते में पड़ी अवशेष धनराशि रू0 0.01 का, दिनांक-03.03.2017 से समायोजन नही किया गया है।
अतः सण्ड्री लाईबिल्टीज जी0एल0 कोड 415 में खाते में पड़ी अवशेष धनराशि का समायोजन न करने हेतु, आपको आरोपित किया जाता है।
साक्ष्य:- सण्ड्री लाईबिल्टीज खाता सं0-415/2 के एकाउण्ट स्टेटमेण्ट की छायाप्रति।
आरोप संख्या 6- आप पर आरोप है कि, आप द्वारा कतिपय जमा बाउचरों में हस्ताक्षर नहीं बनाये जाते हैं। जैसे-दिनांक 18.07.2018 को श्री सुन्दरलाल के खाता सं0-32841 में रु0 30,000.00 के जमा बाउचर में आप द्वारा हस्ताक्षर नहीं बनाया गया है।
अतः जमा बाउचरों में हस्ताक्षर न बनाने हेतु, आपको आरोपित किया जाता है।
साक्ष्यः-जमा बाउचर दिनांक-18.07.2018 श्री सुन्दरलाल खाता सं0-32841 में रु0 30000.00 की छायाप्रति।
आरोप संख्या 7- आप पर आरोप है कि, आप द्वारा शाखा ग्राहकों के साथ सन्तोषजनक व्यवहार नहीं क्रिया जाता है। शाखा के खाता धारक श्री नारेन्द्र कुमार, पुत्र श्री शिवराम निवासी ग्राम रक्सा खाता संख्या-32262 द्वारा बैंक को शिकायती पत्र दिया गया था कि, दिनांक-02.05.2018 को आप द्वारा उनका भुगतान नहीं किया गया, तथा ग्राहक के साथ अभद्रता की गयी।
अतः शाखा में ग्राहकों के साथ सन्तोषजनक व्यवहार न करने हेतु, आपको आरोपित किया जाता है।
साक्ष्यः - श्री नारेन्द्र कुमार, के शिकायती पत्र एवं जांच आख्या की छायाप्रति।
आरोप संख्या 8- आप पर आरोप है कि, आप द्वारा मा0 बैंक संचालकों के साथ उचित व्यवहार नहीं किया जाता है। माह जून 2018 में बैंक संचालक श्री अर्जुन शुक्ला द्वारा शाखा-बदौसा भ्रमण के दौरान आप द्वारा उनसे उचित व्यवहार नहीं किया गया।
अतः शाखा में मा0 बैंक संचालकों के साथ उचित व्यवहार न करने हेतु आपको आरोपित किया जाता है।"
4. The petitioner put in his reply to the charge-sheet on 09.01.2019, denying the charges. The petitioner submits that no inquiry whatsoever was held by the Inquiry Officer in the sense that no evidence was heard, but doing a reading of the charges and the petitioner's reply, the Inquiry Officer held seven of the eight charges proved, exonerating the petitioner on the 8th charge alone. The aforesaid inquiry report dated 06.02.2019 was submitted by the Inquiry Officer to the Disciplinary Authority, to wit, the Secretary/ Chief Executive Officer of the Board, who issued a show notice to the petitioner dated 10.01.2020. The petitioner submitted his reply to the inquiry report on 26.02.2020, which was received in the office of the Bank on 27.02.2020. By an order dated 30.09.2020, the Secretary/ Chief Executive Officer of the Board proceeded to dismiss the petitioner from service in the exercise of powers under Regulation 84(1)(f) of the Regulations.
5. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal from service, the petitioner has instituted the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution.
6. A notice of motion was issued on 11.01.2021. In course of time, a counter affidavit was filed on 10.10.2022 on behalf of respondent Nos.3 and 4, to which the petitioner filed a rejoinder on 19.10.2022. On 02.10.2024, when the writ petition came up, parties having exchanged affidavits, it was admitted to hearing, which proceeded with forthwith. Judgment was reserved.
7. Heard Mr. C. B. Yadav, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Anand Kumar Yadav, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the State, Mr. Satyam Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 and Mr. Sujeet Kumar Rai, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos. 3 and 4.
8. The first and the foremost point, that has been argued by Mr. C.B. Yadav, learned Senior Advocate, is that in disciplinary proceedings, involving the imposition of a major penalty, it is a salutary principle that the Inquiry Officer must fix a date, time and venue for holding the inquiry with intimation, both to the establishment and the delinquent. It is also imperative, again by salutary principle, that in all major penalty matters, the establishment must be required by the Inquiry Officer to prove the charges by leading evidence in support thereof, both documentary and oral, that is to say, examination of witnesses in support of the charge. It is submitted by Mr. Yadav that the Inquiry Officer in this case did not fix any date, time or place for holding the inquiry and never required the establishment to produce evidence in support of the charges or examine witnesses. No evidence, in fact, was produced by the establishment in support of the charges or witnesses examined to prove them. In this connection, he has invited the attention of the Court to paragraph Nos.15, 32, 34, 36, 37, 38 and 39 of the writ petition.
9. The next point, which Mr. Yadav has urged, is that the Disciplinary Authority has proceeded to pass the impugned order mechanically, setting out three columns in his order, where in the first column, the charge against the petitioner was mentioned; in the second, his reply; and, in the third, the comments of the Inquiry Officer. However, no reasons were assigned by the Disciplinary Authority to hold the petitioner guilty, or so to say, to accept the findings of the Inquiry Officer on the charges, after considering the petitioner's defence. There is no discussion of the evidence by the Disciplinary Authority whatsoever or disclosure of reasons to reach his conclusions. It is urged that the order impugned for non-disclosure of reasons violates the principles of natural justice.
10. It is in the last submitted by Mr. Yadav that the charges taken on their face value are by no standard serious enough to call for the imposition of the extreme penalty of dismissal from service. He says that the punishment awarded is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the charges.
11. Mr. Sujit Kumar Rai, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.3 and 4, who has been joined in his submissions by Mr. Akhilesh Kumar Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel and Mr. Satyam Singh, learned Counsel, all appearing for the various respondents, say that the procedure followed is flawless and the punishment awarded condign.
12. Upon hearing learned Counsel for the parties and perusing the record, the foremost ground urged on behalf of the petitioner is well substantiated. The averments in paragraph Nos.15, 32, 34, 36, 37, 38 and 39 of the writ petition, have not at all been denied in point of fact. Rather, irrelevant pleas have been raised. For instance in paragraph No.32 of the writ petition, it is categorically pleaded that no departmental inquiry worth the name was conducted and no witness examined by the respondents in support of the charges. It is also pleaded that no date, time and place for holding the inquiry was fixed by the Inquiry Officer. In paragraph No.24 of the counter affidavit, filed on behalf of respondent Nos.3 and 4, it is averred that if the employee requires any witnesses to be examined, he may request the Authority, but once the charges are proved on the basis of record, then it cannot be said to be mandatory that witnesses be examined. The petitioner did not make any request to examine witnesses. Therefore, it is admitted for a fact that no witness was produced on behalf of the establishment and it is admitted by non-traverse that no date, time and place for holding the inquiry was fixed by the Inquiry Officer.
13. The law regarding the holding of a departmental inquiry on charges, which may lead to the imposition of a major penalty, mandates that the Inquiry Officer must convene himself into a formal inquiry Tribunal and distance himself from the establishment, of which he might otherwise be a part. He must fix a date, time and place for holding the inquiry with due intimation both to the delinquent and the establishment. At the appointed date, time and venue for holding the inquiry, he must first require the establishment to produce evidence, both documentary and oral, to prove the charge/ charges. The evidence has to be produced before the Inquiry Officer by a presenting officer, representing the establishment, who would introduce the documentary evidence and show the relevance of that documentary evidence to the charges. The presenting officer may himself be one of the witnesses, but in any case, he has to produce witnesses to testify in support of the charges in any departmental inquiry, where a major penalty is likely to ensue. The witnesses on behalf of the establishment, once they testify, either proving the documents, or generally in support of the charges, have to be offered to the delinquent for cross-examination. The stage of cross-examination of witnesses by the delinquent being over, the Inquiry Officer is obliged to call upon the employee/ delinquent to produce evidence in his defence. The delinquent can produce both documentary and oral evidence. If the delinquent produces witnesses in his defence, they would be available for cross-examination by the establishment in the same manner as the establishment's witnesses.
14. A perusal of the inquiry report and the pleadings of parties ex facie reveals that no such procedure has been followed by the respondents. No date, time and place for holding the inquiry was scheduled with notice, duly given to the petitioner as well as the respondents by the Inquiry Officer. In addition, the Inquiry Officer never convened himself into the Tribunal, but sat back in his office and shuffled through the papers, that is to say, the charge-sheet and the petitioner's reply and the documents annexed, in order to record his findings. The inquiry report is a three columned document, with the first column carrying the charge, the second the petitioner's reply and in the third, the findings of the Inquiry Officer, which are based upon his own reasoning and understanding of the charges, the petitioner's defence, the idle papers annexed to the charge-sheet and the petitioner's reply. It is to be borne in mind that papers annexed to the charge-sheet are not evidence, unless these are properly produced at the inquiry and proven by witnesses, else they are idle papers. The Inquiry Officer has reached his conclusions bereft of evidence. He has, in fact, held no inquiry.
15. The law in this regard is well settled as observed by the Supreme Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and others v. Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2 SCC 772, Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank and others, (2009) 2 SCC 570, State of Uttaranchal and others v. Kharak Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 236 and the Bench decisions of this Court in State of U.P. and another v. Kishori Lal and another, 2018 (9) ADJ 397 (DB) (LB), Smt. Karuna Jaiswal v. State of U.P., 2018 (9) ADJ 107 (DB) (LB) and State of U.P. v. Aditya Prasad Srivastava and another, 2017 (2) ADJ 554 (DB) (LB).
16. The position of the law in this regard that has withstood the test of time has been recently endorsed by the Supreme Court in Satyendra Singh v. State of U.P. and another, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3325, where it has been held:
"12. Learned counsel for the State was ad idem to the submissions of the appellant's counsel that no witness whatsoever was examined during the course of the inquiry proceedings. On a minute appraisal of the Inquiry Report, it is evident that other than referring to the documents pursuant to the so-called irregular transactions constituting the basis of the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer failed to record the evidence of even a single witness in order to establish the charges against the appellant.
13. This Court in a catena of judgments has held that the recording of evidence in a disciplinary proceeding proposing charges of a major punishment is mandatory. Reference in this regard may be held to Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank, (2009) 2 SCC 570 and Nirmala J. Jhala v. State of Gujarat, (2013) 4 SCC 301.
17. It is also true that the Disciplinary Authority, while passing the impugned order, has not at all given any reasons to reach his conclusions showing application of mind. There was no evidence considered by the Inquiry Officer nor has any evidence been considered by the Disciplinary Authority. His conclusions are abrupt, cryptic and no more than an ipse dixit of the officer. Since, we are minded to quash the impugned order and sent back the matter to the respondents with liberty to proceed afresh from the stage of the charge-sheet, we do not wish to go into the question about the disproportionality of punishment at this stage. However, we must remark that bearing in mind the nature of charges and the result of the inquiry, if held again by the respondents, they should consider awarding punishment, that is condign to the gravity of the charge after due application of mind to the gravity of the allegations.
18. In the result, this petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 30.09.2020 passed by the Secretary/ Chief Executive Officer of the Bank is hereby quashed. A mandamus is issued, ordering respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4, to ensure amongst themselves immediate reinstatement of the petitioner in service and payment of his current salary, in the first instance. After the petitioner is reinstated in service, it will be open to the respondents to hold disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner afresh from the stage of the charge-sheet. If the respondents elect to pursue fresh proceedings against the petitioner, arrears of salary etc. need not be paid until conclusion of fresh proceedings, where the entitlement would be subject to the event in those proceedings. If, however, the respondents do not elect to pursue fresh proceedings, the petitioner would be entitled to receive 50% of his emoluments for the period that he has remained out of service on account of the impugned order, since quashed. In either case, upon reinstatement and subject to the event in proceedings, if taken afresh, the petitioner would be entitled to continuity of service and other consequential benefits. Disciplinary proceedings, if elected to be pursued afresh by the respondents, shall be expeditiously concluded, wherein the petitioner will cooperate.
19. There shall be no order as to costs.
20. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Secretary, U.P. Co-operative Institutional Service Board, Lucknow through the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Lucknow, the Secretary/ Chief Executive Officer, District Co-operative Bank Limited, Banda and the Chairman, Committee of Management, District Co-operative Bank Limited, Banda through the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Banda by the Registrar (Compliance).
Order Date :- 04.4.2025
Anoop
(J.J. Munir)
Judge
