Mr. Rajendraram S/O Narayanram ... vs The Chairman, Central Bank Of ...
2017 Latest Caselaw 4907 Bom

 2107WP2754.15-Judgment                                                                         1/4


              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                        NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

                      WRIT PETITION NO.  2754  OF    2015


 PETITIONER :-                        Mr.   Rajendraram   S/o   Narayanram   Verma,
                                      aged   about   45   years,   Occupation   :   Ex.
                                      Manager/CSOE,   R/o   C/o   Narayan   Niketan,
                                      Sub Post Office Edulhatu, Morabadi, Ranchi-
                                      834008 (Zarkhand).                  

                                         ...VERSUS... 

 RESPONDENTS :-                  1. The   Chairman,   Central   Bank   of   India,
                                    Central   Office,   Chandra   Mukhi,   Nariman
                                    Point, Mumbai-400021. 
                                 2. The   Regional   Manager/Disciplinary
                                    Authority,   Central  Bank   of  India,  Amravati
                                    Region, Amravati.   
                                 3. The Zonal Manager, Central Bank of India,
                                    Zonal Office, M.G.Road, Pune. 


 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Mr. Amol Patil, counsel for the petitioner.
           Mr. N.W.Almelkar, counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 3.
 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                        CORAM : SMT. VASANTI    A    NAIK & 
                                                    ARUN  D. UPADHYE
                                                                     ,   JJ.

DATED : 21.07.2017

O R A L J U D G M E N T (Per Smt.Vasanti A Naik, J.)

By this writ petition, the petitioner challenges the order of

the disciplinary authority dated 11/08/2014, removing the petitioner

2107WP2754.15-Judgment 2/4

from service in view of the proof of the charges bearing charge Nos.5(I)

and 9, that were levelled against him in the departmental enquiry. By

amending the writ petition, the petitioner also challenges the order of

the appellate authority dated 08/06/2015, confirming the order of the

disciplinary authority.

2. Inter alia, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that

the order of the appellate authority is liable to be set aside and the

matter is liable to be remanded to the appellate authority as the

appellate authority has not applied its mind while deciding the appeal

filed by the petitioner. It is stated that the appellate authority has not

recorded a single reason for upholding the order of the disciplinary

authority. It is stated that it is only observed by the appellate authority

that since no new facts had been brought on record by the petitioner,

the order of removal of the petitioner from service was just and proper.

It is submitted that it is a well settled position that the appellate

authority should record at least some reasons even while confirming the

order that is challenged before the same.

3. Shri Almelkar, the learned counsel for the respondent-

bank, has supported the order of the appellate authority. It is submitted

that the entire case papers were placed before the appellate authority

2107WP2754.15-Judgment 3/4

and the appellate authority had also called for the notes and remarks

from the disciplinary authority before arriving at a finding that the

order passed by the disciplinary authority was just and proper. It is

submitted that the order of the disciplinary authority is very exhaustive

and the disciplinary authority has recorded several reasons while

holding that the serious charges bearing charge Nos.5(1) and 9 were

proved against the petitioner. The learned counsel sought for the

dismissal of the writ petition.

4. We had heard the learned counsel for the parties for quite

some time. We had prima facie found that the disciplinary authority has

exhaustively recorded the reasons before imposing the punishment of

removal of the petitioner from service. We had also found, as rightly

submitted on behalf of the respondent-bank that the charges that were

proved against the petitioner were grave and serious. However, since

during the pendency of the writ petition, the appellate authority has

decided the appeal without recording any reasons for dismissing the

same, it would be necessary to remand the matter to the appellate

authority for a fresh decision in accordance with law. It is well settled

that even while confirming an order that is challenged before the

appellate authority, it would be necessary for the appellate authority to

record at least a few reasons. In the instant case, the appellate

2107WP2754.15-Judgment 4/4

authority has not recorded a single reason while rejecting the appeal

filed by the petitioner.

5. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is partly

allowed. The order of the appellate authority is hereby quashed and set

aside. The matter is remanded to the appellate authority for deciding

the appeal afresh, in accordance with law. The appellate authority

should decide the appeal as early as possible. Rule is made absolute in

the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.

                        JUDGE                                            JUDGE 


 KHUNTE