Delhi High Court
Virender Kumar Gaur vs State Bank Of India & Ors. on 14 February, 2013
Author: V.K.Shali
* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ R.S.A. NO.157/2008
Decided on : 14th February, 2013
VIRENDER KUMAR GAUR ...... Appellant
Through: Appellant in person.
Versus
STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS. ...... Respondents
Through: Mr.Dhananjay Kumar, proxy counsel for
Mr.S.L.Gupta, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
V.K. SHALI, J. (ORAL)
1. This is a regular second appeal which is pending for the last four
years. No substantial question of law has been formulated till date.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant on the question
of substantial question of law. Before dealing with his
submissions, it would be pertinent to give the brief background of
the case.
3. The appellant was working in the State Bank of India, New Delhi
as Officer Junior Management Scale-I and at the relevant time was
posted at Indira Gandhi International Airport Extension Counter.
The primary duty of the appellant at the said extension counter was
related to the foreign exchange dealings and receiving of custom
duties at the extension counter. On 20th May, 1986, some of the
officials of the Directorate of Enforcement, New Delhi inspected
the extension counter of Indira Gandhi International Airport of the
State Bank of India and found a bag containing foreign exchange
of US $800 and Saudi Riyan 8350 of the appellant. The said
recovery from the personal bag of the appellant was effected and
the same was treated in violation of FERA Act and the rules
framed thereunder as the appellant was not able to give any
satisfactory answer for his personal possession of the foreign
exchange. The appellant was arrested by the officials of
Directorate of Enforcement on 30.5.1986 and produced before the
learned ACMM, New Delhi. The appellant was remanded to
judicial custody and ultimately was able to get his bail on
13.6.1986. The appellant was detained under COFEPOSA on
30.5.86 and the order of preventive detention was quashed after
seven months in pursuance to the WP no.260/1986. As per the
provisions of FERA, adjudication proceedings were initiated
against the appellant and a penalty of `21,000/- was imposed on
him vide order dated 27.3.1991. This was challenged by the
appellant by way of an appeal and in the appeal vide order dated
25.3.2008, the aforesaid penalty was reduced to `11,000/-.
4. On account of these facts, the appellant was suspended by the State
Bank of India and departmental enquiry was initiated against him.
An Enquiry officer was appointed and charges were framed against
him for major penalty. The bank examined four witnesses against
him namely Sh.N.P.Seshan (PW-1), Sh.S.B.Nigam (PW-2),
Sh.K.K.Sharma (PW-3) & Sh.R.K.Handoo (PW-4) and exhibited
number of documents. In these departmental proceedings, the
appellant was visited with punishment of dismissal, after following
the due process of law.
5. The appellant preferred an appeal against the order of dismissal,
which was also dismissed. He filed a suit for declaration stating
that enquiry report dated 30.3.1993 and the order dated 16.6.94
passed by the appellate authority upholding his dismissal are bad in
law.
6. The said suit was contested by the respondent/SBI on the pleadings
of the parties, the following issues were framed:-
"(i) Whether the suit is time barred under the law of
limitation? OPD
(ii) Whether the suit is barred under the provisions of
the Specific Relief Act? OPD
(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of
declaration as prayed for in the suit? OPP
(iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of
mandatory injunction as prayed for in the suit? OPP
(v) Relief.
7. The suit was decided against the appellant. Feeling aggrieved, the
appellant preferred an appeal before the appellate Court bearing
RCA no.13/2003 titled Sh.Virender Kumar Gaur Vs. State Bank
of India & Anr. The appellate Court upheld the order of the trial
court dismissing the suit for declaration and declined the relief of
declaring the enquiry report or the punishment of dismissal as bad
in law. This punishment was imposed by the disciplinary authority
and confirmed by the appellate authority.
8. Still feeling dissatisfied, the appellant has preferred the present
second regular appeal.
9. The appellant in the said appeal has formulated as many as 26
questions of law.
10. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. He has made
submissions with regard to the re-appreciation of evidence and
contended that these are all questions of law which are arising from
the said appeal. He has also placed reliance in case titled Kumaon
Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. Vs. Girija Shankar Pandey AIR
2000 SC 24.
11. I have gone through the said judgment. In the judgment cited, the
question which was involved was as to -'whether there are
allegations of bias which are levelled against the Managing
Director for the purpose of imposing punishment of dismissal on
the General Manager were made out or not?' The Apex Court in
this context had noted the fact that the General Manager who was
the delinquent employee in the said case was able to establish that
his case was hit by bias on the part of the Managing Director
inasmuch as the sequence of events in that case showed that the
Managing Director was not favourable towards him. In order to
arrive at such a conclusion, the Apex Court noted the fact that
when the show cause notice was served on the General Manager,
documents were not given; when the enquiry was held, no date was
fixed for examining the witnesses and no presenting officer was
appointed. Reply to the enquiry report was sought immediately on
the next date. Dismissal order was passed within a few hours after
personal hearing having been given by the Managing Director.
Under these circumstances, it was observed that the managing
director had acted in 'Hottest haste' and therefore, the decision of
the disciplinary authority suffered from bias.
12. In the present case, the facts do not reveal any such bias on the part
of the disciplinary authority. On the contrary, it will show that the
appellant has not only challenged his dismissal before three
authorities i.e. the appellate authority, the trial court and the first
appellate court, which have dismissed his plea, yet a second appeal
has been filed. Further the first appellate court has also taken note
of the fact that in the departmental adjudication proceedings, he
was visited with penalty, which was upheld by the appellate forum
although, the penalty amount was reduced. The present case
pertains to the year 1986 and we are in the year 2013, therefore,
this can hardly be said to be a case where there is undue haste on
the part of the authority. The questions which have been raised by
the appellate in the present case are essentially questions of fact
and not substantial questions of law arising from the said appeal.
13. Accordingly, as there is no substantial question of law arising from
the regular second appeal and the same is dismissed.
V.K. SHALI, J.
FEBRUARY 14, 2013
RN
