State Bank Of Bikaner & Jaipur And ... vs S.P. Sharma
2014 Latest Caselaw 2359 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                                   Reserved on: 06.05.2014
                                               Date of Decision: 09.05.2014
Review Petition No.432/2013 (for review of order dated 1.2.2013 by the
Respondent)

+                         LPA No.736 of 2012

STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR AND ORS...... Appellants
             Through: Ms Kittu Bajaj, Adv.

                                  Versus

S.P. SHARMA                                               ..... Respondent
                     Through:   Mr B.K. Sinha, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN

                                  JUDGEMENT

V.K. JAIN, J.

The Review Petitioner is seeking review of the judgment and order

dated 1.2.2013 whereby the appeal filed by the appellant bank against the

order of learned Single Judge dated 14.5.2012 was allowed, the order

impugned in the LPA was set aside and the matter was remanded to the

learned Single Judge for adjudicating upon the plea of the respondent, based

upon the non-compliance of Rule 19(2) of the State Bank of Bikaner and

Jaipur (Officers) Service Regulations, 1979.

2. The facts giving rise to the filing of the LPA, as stated in the order

dated 1.2.2013, are as under:

"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..."

3. Regulation 19(2) of the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (Officers)

Service Regulations, 1979 reads as under:

"19 (2) In case disciplinary proceedings under the relevant regulations of service have been initiated against an officer before he ceases to be in the Bank's service by the operation of, or by virtue of, any of the said regulations or the provisions of these regulations, the disciplinary proceedings may, at the discretion of the Managing Director, be continued and concluded by the authority by which the proceedings were initiated in the manner provided for in the said regulations as if the officer continues to be in service, so however, that he shall be deemed to be in service only for the purpose of the continuance and conclusion of such

proceedings.

Explanations (i) An officer will retire on the last day of the month in which he completes the stipulated service or age of retirement."

4. Allowing the LPA filed by the Bank, this Court inter alia observed

and held as under:

"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 in support 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."

5. In para 3 of the writ petition, the petitioner alleged inter alia that the

detailed Article of Charge along with related documents was served on him

by post, vide letter dated 9/17.02.2007 and during the relevant period of ten

(10) days for submission of reply he was not even aware of the various

Articles of Charge nor had any related document been available with him.

In the corresponding para 3 of the counter affidavit, the Bank stated that the

Memorandum dated 29.1.2007, encompassed the complete exhaustive

charge sheet and the same was Annexure R-1 to the counter affidavit. A

perusal of Annexure R-1 to the counter affidavit would show that it

comprised not only the Memo dated 29.1.2007 but also Annexure I, i.e.

Statement of Article of Charge and Annexure-II, i.e., Statement of

Imputation in support of Article of Charge framed against the petitioner.

Thus, the plea taken in the counter affidavit was that Annexure-I as well as

Annexure-II were served upon the petitioner, along with the Memo dated

29.1.2007.

6. The learned counsel for the review petitioner sought recall of the

order dated 1.2.2013 on the following grounds:

(i) There was no material before the Court to show that Annexure-I

(Article of Charge) and Annexure-II (details of imputation for service of the

Articles of Charge) to the Memorandum of Charge dated 29.01.2007 were

served upon the petitioner;

(ii) The appellant vide its letter dated 9/17.2.2007 supplied copies of

documents listed in the Memo of Charge to the petitioner, thereby admitting

that the aforesaid documents were not annexed to the Memo; and

(iii) Even if it is presumed that Annexure-I and Annexure-II to the Memo

were served upon the respondent/ review petitioner along with the Memo,

neither the statements of witnesses nor the copies of the documents were

supplied to him and since charge-sheet is incomplete without those

documents, it cannot be said that the disciplinary proceedings against the

respondent/review petitioner were initiated before he ceased to be in the

service of the bank.

7. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of our order dated 1.2.2013 extracted hereinabove,

contain the reasons for our coming to conclusion that the Annexures to the

Memo dated 29.01.2007 were actually received by the respondent/ review

petitioner on 31.01.2007 and in coming to the said conclusion, we also

considered a letter dated 8.2.2007 purporting to be written by the petitioner

to the Bank. During the course of arguments, when the learned counsel for

the petitioner expressed ignorance with respect to the letter dated 8.2.2007,

which finds mention in para 5 of our order dated 1.2.2013, we requested him

to ask the petitioner to be present in the Court, to admit/deny the original

letter dated 8.2.2007, which the learned counsel for the bank had placed

before us. The petitioner, when he appeared before us, expressly admitted

the aforesaid letter dated 8.2.2007. Therefore, we have rightly relied inter

alia upon the aforesaid letter dated 8.2.2007, to conclude that the Articles of

Charge and details of imputation in support of Articles of Charge were

actually supplied to the petitioner, alongwith the Memo on 31.01.2007.

8. As regards, the bank supplying the copies of documents listed in the

Memo of Charge vide its letter dated 9/17.2.2007, it appears to us that vide

said letter, the Bank supplied, to the petitioner, the documents, which had

been referred to in the Memorandum dated 29.1.2007, and not annexures I &

II, which constituted part of the Memorandum. In other words the

documents referred to in the Memorandum dated 29.1.2007 and supplied to

the petitioner vide letter dated 9/17.2.2007 were those documents by which

charges against the petitioner were sought to be proved, and not the Articles

of Charge and the details of the imputations in support of the Articles of

Charge. We, therefore, find no merit, in the second contention of the

learned counsel for the petitioner.

9. In our opinion, the disciplinary proceedings under the relevant

Regulations could have been be initiated against an officer of the Bank even

without supplying the copies of the documents by which the charges were

sought to be proved and, statements of witnesses along with the charge

memo and the said documents could be supplied to him at a later date,

though before the inquiry actually commenced. Nothing prevented the

delinquent officer from seeking the said documents before submitting his

reply to the charge memo in case he was not in a position to respond to the

said memo in the absence of the aforesaid statements of witnesses and

copies of documents. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not drawn

our attention to any decision holding that the disciplinary proceedings

cannot be said to have been initiated unless the copies of documents by

which the charges are sought to be proved and statements of witnesses are

supplied to the delinquent employee.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the decision of

Supreme Court dated 18.05.2007 in UCO Bank and Anr vs. Rajinder Lal

Capoor, Civil Appeal No. 2739 of 2007 and Coal India Ltd. And Ors. vs.

Saroj Kumar Mishra, (2007) 9 SCC 625. In UCO Bank (supra), the

respondent superannuated on or before 01.11.1996 and the charge-sheet was

issued only on 13.11.1998. The Regulation, by which the respondent in the

aforesaid case was governed, provided that the officer against whom

disciplinary proceedings have been initiated will cease to be in service on

the date of superannuation but the disciplinary proceedings will continue as

if he was in service until the proceedings are concluded and final order is

passed in respect thereof. It was held by the Supreme Court that the above-

referred Regulation could be invoked only when the disciplinary

proceedings had been initiated prior to the respondent ceasing to be in

service. It was further held that a departmental proceeding is initiated only

when a charge-sheet is issued and not merely by the issuance of a show-

cause notice. However, in the case before this Court, the departmental

proceedings against the petitioner were initiated at the time when he was

still in the service of the bank, since not only the Charge Memorandum, but

also the Articles of Charge and Details of Imputation in support of the

Articles of Charge were served upon him on 31.01.2007. In Coal India

(supra), the Supreme Court held that a departmental proceeding is ordinarily

said to be initiated only when a charge-sheet is issued. There is no quarrel

with the aforesaid proposition of law, but, the charge-sheet to the review

petitioner having been served upon him on 31.01.2007, the above-referred

decision is of no help to him.

11. For the reasons stated hereinabove, we find no error apparent on the

face of the record in our order dated 01.02.2013.

The review petition is devoid of any merit and is hereby dismissed.

V.K. JAIN, J.

MAY 09, 2014                           BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J.
rd/b'nesh/BG