State Bank Of Bikaner And Jaipur & ... vs S.P. Sharma
2013 Latest Caselaw 487 Del

$~4
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+     LPA 736/2012 & CM No.18789/2012 (for stay)
      STATE BANK OF BIKANER AND JAIPUR & ORS...... Appellants
                     Through : Mr. V. Shekhar, Sr. Adv. with Ms.
                               Kittu Bajaj and Ms. Shaveta
                               Chaudhary, Advocates

                          versus
      S.P. SHARMA                                    .... Respondent
                          Through :     Mr. B.K. Sinha with Ms. Pratibha
                                        Sinha, Advs.

      CORAM:
      HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN

                         ORDER

% 01.02.2013 The respondent before us, who superannuated from service of the appellant bank on 31.01.2007, was served a charge-sheet on the very same date. The charges against him were held to be proved in the inquiry instituted against him and he was dismissed from service of the bank on 6.8.2008. The appeal preferred by him having been dismissed, a writ petition was filed by him, challenging the order of dismissal inter alia on the ground that the annexures referred in the Memorandum of Charge dated 29.1.2007 were delivered to him on 17.2.2007, after he had already superannuated and that Rule 19(2) of the State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979, protects him and all the proceedings carried out by the bank were in disregard of the said Rule, are illegal ab-initio.

2. The learned Single Judge vide the impugned order dated 14.5.2012

has concluded that the respondent did not issue charge-sheet with all relevant documents required under the law, on or before the date of retirement and, therefore, the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority were bad in law. Those orders were accordingly set aside. Being aggrieved from the said order, the bank is before us by way of this appeal.

3. When this appeal came up for hearing on 14.12.2012, this Court noticing the contention of the respondent that the annexures to the Memo dated 29.1.2007 had been served only vide letter dated 17.2.2007 and, therefore, the disciplinary proceedings cannot be said to have been initiated within the meaning of Regulation 62(2) 2(i) of Regulation Rule 19(2) of the State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979, directed the learned counsel for the appellant to produce the entire record relating to inquiry proceedings, initiation thereof and preparation of annexures to the Memo dated 29.2.2007. In compliance of the said order, the record has been produced before us by the appellant bank.

4. A perusal of the record produced by the bank would show that the Memo of Charge dated 29.1.2007 had referred to Articles of Charges as Annexure-I and details of imputation in support of Articles of Charges as Annexure-II. It was further submitted in the Memo that the aforesaid documents were annexed therewith. The respondent received the aforesaid Memo on 31.1.2007 itself and gave an acknowledgment in receipt of the Memo. While acknowledging the receipt of the Memo, the respondent did not record that Annexure-I (Articles of Charge) and/or Annexure-II (details of imputation for Service of the Articles of Charge), which found reference

in paragraph 1 of the Memo, were not received by him. The respondent before us was holding a responsible post of Chief Manager in the bank at the time he received the said Memo. He knew that Annexure-I and Annexure-II had been specifically referred in paragraph-1 of the Memo which also stated that the said documents were not annexed to the Memo. Had the respondent received only the Memo and not received Annexure-I and/or Annexure-II, he would certainly have, while acknowledging the receipt of the Memo, made a noting that the copies of the Annexures had not been received by him. The failure of the respondent to make any such endorsement while receiving the Memo clearly shows that the said Annexures were actually received by him along with the Memo and that is why no such noting was made by him while acknowledging the receipt of the Memo.

5. The respondent replied to the Memo vide letter dated 8.2.2007. In this communication, he did not claim that the Articles of Charges and/or details of imputation in support of Articles of Charge had not been supplied to him along with the Memo on 31.1.2007. Had these documents not been supplied to the respondent, he would certainly have stated so while replying to the said Memo on 8.2.2007.

6. In view of the above, we are satisfied that there is no merit in the contention of the respondent that Annexure-I and Annexure-II to the Memo dated 29.1.2007, were not received by him on 31.1.2007 and such a plea taken by him is only an afterthought. Since the order allowing the writ petition is based solely on the ground that the aforesaid annexures had not been received by the respondent on 31.1.2007, it is liable to be set aside.

7. The learned counsel for the respondent pointed out that one of his contentions before the learned Single Judge, as noted in the order dated 25.4.2012, which has been reproduced in the impugned order dated 14.5.2012 was with respect to the protection afforded to the respondent under Rule 19(2) of the State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979. Since the learned Single Judge did not advert to this plea taken by the respondent, we are of the view that the matter needs to be remitted back to the learned Single Judge for adjudication on the aforesaid plea taken by the respondent.

8. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the appeal is allowed, the order dated 14.5.2012 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned Single Judge for adjudicating upon the plea of the respondent based upon non-compliance of Rule 19(2) of the State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979.

The appeal as well as the accompanying application stand disposed of.

CHIEF JUSTICE

V.K. JAIN, J FEBRUARY 01, 2013 rd