Shri B.R. Sharma vs Syndicate Bank And Ors.
2013 Latest Caselaw 4249 Del

*            IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         W.P.(C) No. 1790/1998

%                                                    18th September, 2013

SHRI B.R. SHARMA                                     ..... Petitioner
                          Through:      Petitioner in person.

                          versus

SYNDICATE BANK AND ORS.                                  ..... Respondents
                 Through:              Mr. Jagat Arora, Advocate with Mr.
                                       Rajat Arora, Advocate.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1.      By this writ petition, the petitioner who was an employee of the

respondent No.1-bank impugns the orders which have been passed by the

departmental authorities; the disciplinary authority and the appellate

authority; whereby petitioner has been imposed with the punishment of

reduction of basic pay by three stages in the time scale of pay.

2.           The charge against the petitioner was that on 12.8.1993 at about

4.30 P.M. he with two other officials, namely Sh. M.K. Jain and Sh. Ajit

Singh went to the DGM Secretariat of Zonal Office, Delhi and send a slip

seeking appointment with the DGM. The attender of DGM took the said


W.P.(C) No.1790/1998                                                Page 1 of 7
 slip to the DGM and came back with the said slip and conveyed to the

petitioner the DGM's inability to give him appointment. Petitioner is then

said to have insisted that he will wait to meet the DGM to which the attender

expressed his inability to do so since the DGM had already conveyed his

decision of not giving the appointment on that date. In the chargesheet, it is

stated that the petitioner thereafter waited alongwith two other officials and

he was heard telling "I will see how the DGM will go out without giving me

appointment. I will gherao him". The further case of the management is

that when DGM came out of his cabin at 6.00 P.M. the petitioner stood in

front of him and stated that he wanted to discuss the matter with the DGM to

which the DGM said that he was leaving urgently and no appointment was

given to the petitioner. Petitioner is said to have found raising his voice in a

high pitch of tone and shouted at the DGM saying that "I will see how you

will go, I have taken appointment from your secretariat". To this DGM said

that no appointment was given and the petitioner reacted in an aggressive

manner and stated that he should be given appointment now.               DGM

therefore told petitioner to come at 4.00 P.M. tomorrow.          Petitioner is

therefore stated to be guilty of creating a scene and spoiling the office

discipline.



W.P.(C) No.1790/1998                                              Page 2 of 7
 3.           Enquiry proceedings were held pursuant to the charge-sheet.

Before the enquiry officer, management led the evidence of four witnesses

and petitioner led evidence of five witnesses. Enquiry officer has thereafter

given the enquiry report against the petitioner finding him guilty.

Disciplinary authority thereafter imposed the punishment of reduction in pay

scale of three stages, and which order of the disciplinary authority has been

upheld by the appellate authority.

4.           Before I refer to the arguments urged on behalf of the

petitioner, it would be necessary to reiterate that in a petition under Article

226 of the Constitution of India filed challenging the orders of the

departmental authorities, this Court does not sit as an Appellate Court and

re-apprise the findings and conclusions of the departmental authorities. This

Court only interferes if there is violation of principles of natural justice or

perversity or violation of any rules/law. If there is no perversity or violation

of principles of natural justice or violation of rules/law, this Court does not

interfere.

5.           The report of enquiry officer in this case is a detailed report

running into 27 pages. Enquiry officer has referred to evidence of the

witnesses of the management and the petitioner. By analyzing the evidence,

enquiry officer has come to a finding of guilt against the petitioner. I asked

W.P.(C) No.1790/1998                                              Page 3 of 7
 the petitioner, who has argued his case in person, as to what is the perversity

in the findings of the enquiry officer, to which petitioner states that

perversity exists because the DGM has not himself come into the witness

box and two officers who accompanied the petitioner have deposed in his

favour.   Reliance is also placed in support of the arguments upon the

judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Hardwari Lal Vs. State of

U.P. & Ors. 1999 IX AD (S.C.) 11.

6.           In my opinion, the argument which is urged on behalf of the

petitioner that it was necessary for the DGM to personally appear in the

witness box is an argument without merit because the act of indiscipline has

been proved by four witnesses on behalf of the management. There is no

law that for an issue of office discipline a complaint must be made by a

particular person as is sought to be argued before me by the petitioner. The

departmental proceedings are decided as per civil law of discharge of onus

of proof in civil proceedings. In this case, there is no documentary evidence

as such because the incident was an oral incident. As already stated above,

this Court does not sit as an Appellate Court to re-apprise the findings and

conclusions of the enquiry officer. No perversity has been pointed out to me

for enabling this Court to interfere under the extraordinary jurisdiction under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Merely because two officials who

W.P.(C) No.1790/1998                                             Page 4 of 7
 accompanied the petitioner to the DGM office supported the petitioner

cannot mean that petitioner is not guilty inasmuch as, as many as four

management witnesses deposed against the petitioner, and on the balance of

probabilities therefore considering the evidence of the respective witnesses,

enquiry officer was justified in arriving at a finding of guilt against the

petitioner. No perversity can be said to exist merely because two persons

have deposed in favour of the petitioner, because, evidence which is led in a

departmental proceeding case, like any other civil case, has to been seen as a

whole, and it is perfectly legitimate for the enquiry officer to arrive at a

conclusion by analyzing the evidence before him and which has been done

in the present case by the finding of guilt against the petitioner.

7.           Reliance placed upon the judgment in the case of Hardwari Lal

(supra) is misconceived because in the facts in the case of Hardwari Lal

(supra) there was a specific complaint made against the charged official by

one Sh. Virender Singh and who was accompanied by Sh. Jagdish Ram at

the time of incident. Neither the complainant Sh. Virender Singh nor the

witness Sh. Jagdish Ram appeared and therefore in such circumstances,

Supreme Court observed that in the enquiry proceedings once the

complainant does not appear and nor also does other witness appear who

accompanied the complainant, it cannot be said that a proper enquiry has

W.P.(C) No.1790/1998                                                  Page 5 of 7
 been held. Supreme Court therefore in such circumstances quashed the

order of the departmental proceedings passed by the employer.

8.           Finally, on behalf of the petitioner reliance was placed on

ground (O) of the writ petition to argue that as per fundamental Rule 29

when a punishment is imposed of reduction in basic pay, the authority

ordering such direction shall state the period for which it shall be effective

and whether on restoration the period of reduction shall operate to postpone

future increments and if so to what extent.

             In the present case, fundamental Rule 29 of the Central

Government does not apply because admittedly the petitioner was the

employee of the respondent No.1-bank, and was not a Central Government

employee. Therefore, the fundamental Rule 29 which is relied upon does not

apply as urged on behalf of the petitioner. In any case, I do not find any

ambiguity in the order passed by the disciplinary authority and which states

that the basic pay of the petitioner is reduced by three stages in the time

scale of pay with immediate effect. Being an unconditional order I do not

think that there is any ambiguity to argue violation of law by alleged

uncertainty in its language.

9.           No other issue was urged before me.

10.          In view of the above, there is no merit in the petition, and the

W.P.(C) No.1790/1998                                             Page 6 of 7
 same is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.




SEPTEMBER 18, 2013                         VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

Ne