Anilkumar Shannimal Gupta vs Allahabad Bank And 2 Ors
2017 Latest Caselaw 6164 Bom

                                                                          901.97.16 wp


          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
             ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
                   WRIT PETITION NO. 97 OF 2016

Anilkumar Shannimal Gupta                           ....     Petitioner
      Vs.
Allahabad Bank and others                           ....     Respondents

P. J. Thorat Advocate for the Petitioner
Mr. Abhay Kulkarni for the Respondents

                                      CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL &
                                              Z. A. HAQ, JJ.

DATE : 16th AUGUST 2017.

P.C.

1 Heard. By this petition, petitioner has challenged the initiation of

disciplinary proceedings against him and has prayed that they be quashed.

2 The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner is charge-sheeted in

respect of the incident which is alleged to have taken place on 03/02/2009, that

the petitioner has retired from service on 31/12/2011 on attaining the age of

superannuation and the departmental inquiry is initiated against him on

03/11/2015 i.e. after almost more than 6 years and 2 months of the incident and

this is not permissible. The petitioner has relied on the provisions of clause 48

of the Allahabad Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations 1995, specially the

2nd proviso below sub clause 1 of clause 48 to contend that the disciplinary

inquiry cannot be initiated after 4 years of the incident. The learned Advocate

for the petitioner has relied on the Judgment given by the Division Bench of

ism 1 of 4

901.97.16 wp

this Court at Aurangabad in the case of Gopal s/o Digambarrao Baride Vs.

The Municipal Council, Beed through its Chief Officer in Writ Petition No.

3582 of 2013 on 31/03/2015 to support his arguments.

3 The learned Advocate for the respondent/employer has submitted that

though the incident occurred on 03/12/2009, the illegality committed by the

petitioner because of which bank has suffered the losses of Rs. 23,60,184/- is

detected by the vigilance squad on 09/09/2014 and therefore, the cause of

action for initiating departmental inquiry against the petitioner arose on

09/09/2014 and the departmental inquiry is initiated against the petitioner on

03/11/2015 i.e. well within the period of limitation prescribed by the above

referred Regulations. It is submitted that the charges levelled against the

petitioner are serious and because of his misconduct, bank is put to huge loss as

recorded above.

4 After hearing the learned Advocates for the respective parties, we find

that the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner relying on the 2 nd proviso

below sub clause 1 of clause 48 of the Regulations are mis-directed. The 2 nd

proviso below sub clause 1 of clause 48 of the Regulations provides that the

departmental or judicial proceedings against the employee cannot be instituted

in respect of the cause of action which arose or in respect of an event which

took place more than 4 years before the institution of the departmental or

ism 2 of 4

901.97.16 wp

judicial proceedings. According to the respondent/bank, cause of action for

initiating departmental inquiry against the petitioner has arisen on 09/09/2014

when the Assistant General Manager, Vigilance Department declared that fraud

has been committed on the bank while sanctioning and disbursing the amount

of loan to the employees alleged to be working in Mahatma Phule Education

Society's Mahatma Phule Pre-primary School and Knowledge Point, Mahatma

Phule, Naigaon, Dadar, Mumbai.

2nd proviso below sub clause 1 of clause 48 of the Regulations of the

respondent/bank enables the respondent/bank to institute the departmental

proceedings against an employee within 4 years of the incident or within 4

years of arising of cause of action.

5 The Judgment given in the case of Gopal s/o Digambarrao Baride

(Supra) relied upon by the learned Advocate for the petitioner does not assist

the petitioner as that Judgment is given while considering the Rule 27 of the

Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982. Rule 27 (2) (b) (ii) of the

Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 lays down that the

departmental proceedings, if not instituted while the government servant was in

service, shall not be instituted, in respect of any event which took place more

than 4 years before institution of the departmental proceedings. In the present

case, the Regulations of the Bank enables the respondent/bank to institute

ism 3 of 4

901.97.16 wp

departmental proceedings till 4 years of arising of cause of action and as

recorded above, the question as to when the cause of action has arisen, being

the disputed question of fact, it cannot be examined in the extra ordinary

jurisdiction.

The Judgment in the case of State of UP and Another Vs. Shri Krishna

Pandey [(1996) 9 Supreme Court Cases 395] also considers Regulation 351-A

of Civil Services Regulations which is similar to Rule 27 (2) (b) (ii) of

Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 and for the reasons recorded

above, this Judgment is also not of any assistance to the petitioner.

6 In our view, it will not be possible for us to determine whether the cause

of action for initiating departmental inquiry against the petitioner has arisen on

03/02/2009 or 09/09/2014, while exercising the extra ordinary jurisdiction

under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It would be appropriate to leave

it to the parties to prove their case at the departmental inquiry.

7 In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the challenges

raised by the petitioner in the petition, the petition is dismissed.

In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.

      [Z. A. HAQ, J.]                                 [NARESH H. PATIL, J.]

ism                                                                                    4 of 4