Delhi High Court
Naresh Kumar Goel vs Syndicate Bank Through Its ... on 4 July, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: July 04, 2022
+ W.P.(C) 8732/2019, CM APPLs. 36071/2019 & 8839/2021
NARESH KUMAR GOEL
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ravi Bassi & Mr. Vikas
Shokeen, Advs.
versus
SYNDICATE BANK
THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGER
..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Puneet Taneja and
Ms. Laxmi Kumari, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
JUDGMENT
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner with the
following prayers:
"In view of the facts and circumstances narrated
above, it is respectfully submitted that this Hon'ble
Court may be pleased to;-
a. issue the appropriate writ, order or direction for
quashing the chargesheet bearing Ref.No.082/HRD:
IRD/DA-3 dated 03/02/2018, issued by the respondent
bank upon the petitioner which is annexed herewith as
ANNEXURE-P-6.
b. award costs in favour of the petitioner and against
the respondent; and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH
Signing Date:04.07.2022
18:25:59
c. grant any other and further order or direction in
favour of the petitioner and against the respondent, as
may be deemed fit and proper under the facts and
circumstances of this case by this Hon'ble Court."
2. In substance the challenge is to the charge sheet dated
February 03, 2018 issued to the petitioner under the provisions of
Regulations 43 & 45 of Syndicate Bank (Employees') Pension
Regulations, 1995 read with Regulation 6 of Syndicate Bank Officer
Employees (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (hereinafter as,
Regulations of 1995 and Regulations of 1976 respectively).
3. Some of the facts as noted from the petition are that the
petitioner joined the respondent / Syndicate Bank ('Bank', for short) in
the post of Clerical cadre on December 20, 1982. He was promoted
hierarchically from time to time. On June 7, 2012, the petitioner was
promoted to the post of Senior Branch Manager at Bisawar Branch and
on May 02, 2014, he was relieved from Bisawar Branch to Regional
Inspectorate at Delhi as Senior Manager (Inspection). On December
19, 2015, he retired from the bank by opting for Voluntary Retirement
Scheme of the Bank.
4. On November 21, 2017, he received a show cause notice dated
November 14, 2017, from the Bank. On November 26, 2017, the
petitioner sought extension of time to file reply. On December 11,
2017, the petitioner demanded list of documents and documents relied
upon by the bank in order to submit the specific reply to the show
cause notice. It is the case of the petitioner that on February 10, 2018,
he received an incomplete charge sheet dated February 03, 2018,
without annexing list of documents, documents and list of witnesses
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH
Signing Date:04.07.2022
18:25:59
relied upon by the bank. Finally, on March 07, 2018, the Petitioner
received the documents relied by the Bank.
5. On March 17, 2018, petitioner received a letter from the bank
informing the petitioner on the appointment of the Inquiry Officer. The
Inquiry Officer held a preliminary inquiry on September 04, 2018. This
writ petition was filed on August 05, 2019. When the matter was listed
on August 13, 2019, this Court had directed the Bank to stay the
enquiry proceedings against the petitioner.
6. The case of the petitioner as contended by his counsel Mr.
Ravi Bassi, that the petitioner having retired from the services of the
Bank in the year 2015, and the charges relate back to 4 years prior to
the issuance of the charge sheet, the same is impermissible in view of
the Regulation 48 of the Regulations of 1995. In this regard, he has
drawn my attention to Regulation 48 of the Regulations of 1995.
7. He also submits that the periodicity of Risk Based Internal
Audit is 18 months(maximum) and the Bank had conducted more than
three Risk Based Internal Audits during the period from July 20, 2012
to March 07, 2018. This audit / inspection scrutinizes any pre sanction
appraisal, documentation and disbursement of loans / advances and
post sanction follow up. If any irregularity is missed out by auditors /
inspectors in the first audit / inspection, it is reasonable to expect that
the remaining undetected irregularities will be detected in the second
audit / inspection and necessary disciplinary proceeding initiated
against the concerned officials in the follow up action. Normally the
second audit / inspection would be completed within 3-4 years. It is in
accordance with this procedure that the Central Vigilance Commission
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH
Signing Date:04.07.2022
18:25:59
had approved the proposal that no disciplinary proceeding will
ordinarily lie against any official for any lapse not detected within two
successive internal regular audits / inspections of the same account or 4
years from the date of event, whichever is later. In case any irregularity
is detected subsequent to the second audit / inspection, the auditors /
inspectors concerned will be held accountable and liable for
disciplinary proceedings.
8. He stated that the impugned charge sheet which has been
issued to the petitioner are vague and unsubstantiated imputation of
misconduct herein below:
(i) The petitioner has failed to obtain the complete and
undated application and supporting documents along with
ADV80A of Borrower / Guarantor.
(ii) The petitioner has failed to conduct presanction visit to
the residence / place of work of borrower and had not verified
civil consumer report of borrower and guarantor.
(iii) The petitioner has placed CIBIL Detect / CIBIL Report
in some loan accounts after sanction / release of the loan to
misguide the bank Inspector.
(iv) The specific release was not done by the petitioner in
many cases.
(v) The invoice / receipt of the Machinery and inventory to
be purchased is either undated / prior to the date of sanction or
not available on record in most of the loans.
(vi) The confirmation of the delivery of machinery ASD 13
is available in only one account.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH
Signing Date:04.07.2022
18:25:59
(vii) The insurance of security is arranged through Oriental
Insurance Company Limited although our bank was having tie-
up with United India Insurance Company Limited which has
caused financial loss to the bank as non-interest income.
9. The aforesaid, according to Mr. Bassi is not definite / distinct
charges as is required to be given under the Regulations. He stated that
the loans which are subject matter of the charge sheet were sanctioned
and disbursed were under the category of MICRO Finance and are part
of the priority sector of Government of India and Bank. The loans /
events mentioned in the charge sheet are secured by CGTMSE Scheme
of Government of India. He also mentioned that the petitioner could
not achieve the target fixed by the bank and Government of India, the
petitioner performed his duties upto fullest satisfaction of his superiors
during his period as Senior Bank Manager at Bisawar Branch. The
inspection / short inspection and off-site monitoring are conducted by
the respondent during the relevant period in respect of alleged events
mentioned in the charge sheet stands closed. The irregularities / lapses
pointed out by the supervisory mechanism of the respondent was
attended then and there and during the time of relieving from the
services by opting VRS, all the functionaries had given clearance and
there was no irregularity / lapse existing as on / till December 19, 2015
against the petitioner.
10. According to him, though a charge sheet was served upon the
petitioner only on March 07, 2018, the preliminary inquiry conducted
was with a delay of six months from the date of initiation of
disciplinary proceedings. The regular inquiry has not commenced till
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH
Signing Date:04.07.2022
18:25:59
date. He has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case
of Prem Nath Bali v. The Registrar High Court of Delhi & Anr.,
which inter alia held that proceedings should be completed within six
months as an outer limit. Where it is not possible for the employer to
conclude due to certain unavoidable causes arising in the proceedings
within the time frame then efforts should be made to complete the
inquiry but not more than a year.
11. He stated that the impugned charge sheet is contrary to the law
laid down by this Court in the case of Harpreet Singh Makkar v.
Punjab and Sind Bank, W.P.(C) 6382/2015 and other connected writ
petitions decided on August 18, 2015, wherein this Court has quashed
the charge sheet issued to the petitioners on those writ petitions on the
ground that the same are beyond the period of 4 years from the date of
events. He has also stated that the above judgment attained finality as
the Intra Court Appel against the judgment has been dismissed by the
Division Bench of this Court. A similar interpretation of Regulations
43, 45 and 48 were also given by the High Court of Kerala in the case
of B. Raghudharan v. Union Bank of India & Ors., W.P. (C)
38387/2010, decided on February 26, 2016.
12. It was the submission of Mr. Bassi that in terms of Regulation
6 of the Regulations of 1976, major penalties which cannot be imposed
in the case of pensioners as held by the Supreme Court in the case of
Jaswant Singh Gill v. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Ors., 2007 (1) SCC
663. He stated that from perusal of the charge sheet, it is clear that the
charges relate to the period July 20, 2012 to March 1, 2014 when the
petitioner was posted at Bisawar Branch whereas the charge sheet was
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH
Signing Date:04.07.2022
18:25:59
received by the petitioner on February 10, 2018, though incomplete.
Hence, the charge sheet having been issued more than 4 years from the
date of events, the same is illegal and unsustainable and need to be
quashed.
13. On the other hand, Mr. Puneet Taneja, learned counsel for the
respondent justified the issuance of charge sheet to the petitioner.
According to him, the petitioner had retired from the services of the
Bank on December 19, 2015, under Voluntary Retirement Scheme and
is a Pensioner of the respondent Bank. While submitting the
application for Voluntary Retirement from the services of the Bank,
the petitioner has undertaken as under: "I am aware that the Bank may
initiate action against me for any act of commissions / omissions,
which may come to light at a later date and also recover any financial
loss which may arise on that account, from my terminal benefits,
including the pension payable in future".
14. He stated that the undertaking given by the petitioner is very
clear and the same shall not preclude the Bank to initiate inquiry
against the petitioner for any misconduct he has committed during his
service even on the ground that the same is contrary to the Regulation
48 of the Regulations of 1995.
15. Mr. Puneet Taneja submitted that the charges against the
petitioner are very serious in nature wherein the following
irregularities have been found on his part which have already been
noted above. Additionally, it is the case of the Bank that the petitioner
permitted cash withdrawal on various dates. He accommodated the
customer and failed to ensure the end utilization of the loan. He had
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH
Signing Date:04.07.2022
18:25:59
failed to obtain the AOD from then borrower. In violation of the extant
guidelines of the Bank. He had exposed risk loss of ₹2.75 Crore
approximately by sanctioning various credit facilities.
16. The objections of the petitioner with regard to charge sheet
was examined vide letter dated March 31, 2018, which was informed
to the petitioner that the Authority did not see any reasons to hold the
departmental inquiry and advised the petitioner to appear before the
Inquiry Authority and cooperate for the smooth conduct of the
disciplinary proceedings and also informed that no further
correspondence in this regard will be entertained.
17. He also stated that the Regulations 43 and 45 of the
Regulations of 1995, entitles the Bank to issue charge sheet and
proceed departmentally for any fraudulent actions or grave misconduct
attributable to the pensioner. The Bank has various supervisory
mechanisms at various levels to ensure strict compliance of Banks
guidelines and to take preventive and corrective steps in case of any
violations and deviations. The misconduct committed by the petitioner
may not have been brought to limelight. The respondent can take
action against a pensioner if he / she is found guilty of any misconduct
on a later date. Non discovery of the misconduct at first instance is not
mitigating fact that absolves the petitioner from the misconduct
committed by him. The CVC Guidelines provides that no disciplinary
proceedings will ordinarily lie against any official for any lapse not
detected within two successive internal regular audits inspections of
the same account or 4 years from the date of event which is later the
limitation of 4 year, shall not be applicable in cases of fraud, other
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH
Signing Date:04.07.2022
18:25:59
criminal offences, cases where malafide are inferable and are observed.
18. The charge sheet has been issued in respect of a series of
events that happened till May 02, 2014. The petitioner himself
mentioned that the last alleged event mentioned in the charge sheet is
on March 01, 2014 which is well within the period of 4 years since the
charge sheet was issued on February 03, 2018.
19. He stated that the definition of the expression, 'event'
mentioned in Regulation 48(2) of the Regulations of 1995, included
'events' on the principle of singular means plural. The expression,
'event' also means the last of the events in the series and thus, does not
stop at the date of sanction of the financial accommodation, but
continues on such dates, when, the act in furtherance of the original
financial accommodation occurs or indulged in. Hence, the issuance of
charge sheet to the petitioner is justified and not coming under
Regulation 48 (2).
20. It was the submission of Mr. Taneja that the judgment in the
case of Jaswant Singh Gill (supra) has been set aside by the Apex
Court in the case of Chairman-cum-Managing Director Mahanadi
Coal Fields Ltd. v. Rabindranath Choubey, 2020 SCC Online SC 470
(para 28) and in State Bank of India v. Ram Lal Bhaskar, (2011) 10
SCC 249, it was held that if the Rule permits, disciplinary proceedings
and consequent action can be taken in terms of the said Rules and
Regulations.
21. He also stated that Regulations 43 and 45 permits initiation of
departmental enquiry as per the procedures specified in Regulations of
1976, against a pensioner which itself shows that the enquiry can be
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH
Signing Date:04.07.2022
18:25:59
initiated even after the employee has attained the age of
superannuation or having retired from the services of the Bank. In this
regard, he has relied upon the judgments in the cases of A. Vamana
Acharya v. Syndicate Bank, ILR 2001 KAR 4896, S.M.Adiga & Ors.
v. Syndicate Bank & Anr., ILR 2011 KAR 4007, and Punjab & Sind
Bank v. Nand Lal Phatnani 2015 SCC OnLine Del 12663.
22. He also stated that without prejudice, even if Regulation 48 (2)
is applicable to the facts of the case, a bare reading of the charge sheet
makes it clear that the disciplinary action was initiated well within the
period of 4 years from the date of the event. The irregularities
committed by Petitioner are pertaining to the period between June 07,
2012 and May 02, 2014. Whereas show cause notice was issued to the
Petitioner on November 14, 2017, and the charge sheet has been issued
on February 03, 2018. As per Regulation 20(3)(ii) of Syndicate Bank
Officers Service Regulations, disciplinary proceedings are deemed to
be pending if show cause notice has been issued to the delinquent. He
has relied on the law laid down in the case of Balkishan Sobti v.
Punjab & Sind Bank and Ors., 2016 SCC Online P & H
4434.
23. In the last, he submits that it is a well settled principle of the
law that the charge sheet or, show cause notice in disciplinary
proceedings should not ordinarily be quashed by the Court. In this
regard, he has relied upon the judgments in the case of State of U.P. v.
Brahm Datt Sharma, AIR 1987 SC 943, Executive Engineer, Bihar
State Housing Board v. Ramesh Kumar Singh & Ors., (1996) 1 SCC
327, Ulagappa & Ors. v. Divisional Commissioner, Mysore & Ors.,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH
Signing Date:04.07.2022
18:25:59
AIR 2000 SC 3603 (2), Special Director & Anr. v. Mohd. Ghuiam
Ghouse & Anr., AIR 2004 SC 1467, and Union of India & Anr. v.
Kunisetty Satyanarayana, AIR 2007 SC 906.
24. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the only issue
which arise for consideration is whether the charge sheet issued to the
petitioner on February 03, 2018, under Regulations 43 and 45 of the
Regulations of 1995, read with Regulation 6 of the Regulations of
1976, shall be barred by limitation prescribed under Regulation 48 of
Regulations of 1995. To answer this issue, it is necessary to reproduce
the Regulation 48 of the Regulations of 1995, as under:-
"48. Recovery of Pecuniary loss caused to the Bank (1)
The competent authority may withhold or withdraw a
pension or a part thereof, whether permanently or for
a specified period, and order recovery from pension of
the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the
Bank if in any departmental or judicial proceedings the
pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or
negligence or criminal breach of trust or forgery or
acts done fraudulently during the period of his service.
Provided that the Board shall be consulted before any
final orders are passed. Provided further that
departmental proceedings, if instituted while the
employee was in service, shall, after the retirement of
the employee, be deemed to be proceedings under these
regulations and shall be continued and concluded by
the authority by which they were commenced in the
same manner as if the employee had continued in
service. (2) No departmental proceedings, if not
instituted while the employee was in service, shall be
instituted in respect of an event which took place more
than four years before such institution; Provided that
the disciplinary proceedings so instituted shall be in
accordance with the procedure applicable to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH
Signing Date:04.07.2022
18:25:59
disciplinary proceedings in relation to the employee
during the period of his service. (3) Where the
Competent Authority orders recovery of pecuniary loss
from the pension, the recovery shall not ordinarily be
made at a rate exceeding one-third of the pension
admissible on the date of retirement of employee;
Provided that where a part of pension is withheld or
withdrawn, the amount of pension drawn by a
pensioner shall not be less than the minimum pension
payable under these regulations".
25. The plea of Mr. Bassi, is primarily that the charges framed
against the petitioner relates back to beyond the period of 4 years
before the issuance of charge sheet on February 03, 2018, and as such
the same could not have been issued. This submission of Mr. Bassi
contested by Mr. Taneja by stating:-
(i) That the petitioner while seeking voluntary retirement
on December 19, 2015 under the Voluntary Retirement
Scheme has given an undertaking that the bank can initiate
action against him for any act of omission and commission
which may come to light at a later date and also recover any
financial loss and as such does not depute the bank from
initiating action against the petitioner even on the ground that
the charge sheet is contrary to Regulation 48 of the Regulations
of 1995.
(ii) The charge sheet against the petitioner is of a very
serious nature.
(iii) The omission and commission of the petitioner has
exposed the bank of a risk loss of ₹2.75 crores.
(iv) The bank has various supervisory mechanism at various
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH
Signing Date:04.07.2022
18:25:59
levels to ensure strict compliance of bank guidelines and to
take preventive and corrective steps in case of any violation
and deviations including an action holding departmental
inquiry under the rules.
(v) Non discovery of the misconduct at first instance is not
mitigating fact that absolves the petitioner from the misconduct
committed by him.
(vi) The charge sheet has been issued in respect of a series of
events that happen till May 02, 2014.
(vii) The petitioner himself has mentioned that the last
alleged event mentioned in the charge sheet is on March 01,
2014 which is well within the period of 4 years, since the
charge sheet was issued on February 03, 2018.
26. Having noted the broad submissions made by Mr. Taneja, to
answer the issue which arises for consideration, it is necessary to note
the contents of the charge sheet issued to the petitioner. There is no
dispute that the Articles of Charge, primarily related to the period,
when the petitioner was working as Senior Branch Manager at Bisawar
Branch, i.e., June 07, 2012 to May 02, 2014. Reference has been made
to various accounts against which loans have been advanced during
that period. The imputation of charges also depicts in a tabular form
i.e., Account Number / Sanctioned Amount / Date of Sanction /
Outstanding Balance As on 30.06.2017, / Status of the Loan Account
(Table I of the Charge Sheet in Paper Book). The Articles of Charge
framed against the petitioner are in the following manner: -
"That you have retired from the service of the bank on
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH
Signing Date:04.07.2022
18:25:59
19.12.2015 by taking VRS. While in service you had
been working as Sr Branch Manager at Biswar Branch
during the period between 07.06.2012 and 02.05.2014.
While working in your position as such, the following
circumstances appear on record.
You have sanctioned the loans to the customers by
accepting incomplete/partial filed loan application.
Pre and post sanction visits were not conducted by you.
CIBIL reports of both Borrower and guarantor are not
verified. You have sanctioned the credit facility for
existing stock/machinery and there is no stock
purchased out of loan proceeds. You had failed to
follow Margin norms. You had sanctioned the MSME
loans without involving the Credit Officer. You had
failed to obtain the Asd13 confirmation of delivery of
machinery. You had accommodated the customer while
sanctioning the loans and failed to ensure the end
utilization and got insured the securities created out of
the bank finance from Oriental Insurance Company
instead of United India Insurance Co, with whom our
bank is having tie-up resulting in financial loss to
bank. By your above act you have exposed the Bank
funds of Rs.2.75 Crore approximately to the risk of
financial loss. It is observed that you have failed to
obtain the AOD from the borrower in violation of
extant guidelines of the Bank.
The details of the above and the irregularities
committed, by you are more fully described in the
Statement of Imputations of Misconduct on your part
appended here below.
Therefore, you are hereby charged for commission of
"Grave Misconduct" making you liable for action
under Regulation 43 r/w Regulation No:45 of
Syndicate Bank
(Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995."
27. The dates of sanction of loans of some accounts are between
the period from February 03, 2014 to March 01, 2014. Mr. Taneja
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH
Signing Date:04.07.2022
18:25:59
may be right to state that charge sheet having been issued on February
03, 2018, some of the loans were sanctioned within 4 years preceding
the date of institution of charge sheet and hence those charges shall not
be barred by limitation as prescribed under Regulation 48 of the
Regulations of 1995.
28. Before dealing with the submission made by Mr. Taneja, it is
necessary to deal with the submission of Mr. Taneja that the show
cause notice was issued to the petitioner on November 14, 2017 and
hence the limitation has to be seen from that date. This submission of
Mr. Taneja is without any merit. It is settled law in terms of the
judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of UOI v. K.V.
Jankiraman, (1991) 4 SCC 109, wherein the Supreme Court held that
the disciplinary proceedings get initiated with the issuance of charge
sheet. In the case of Harpreet Singh Makkar (supra) also this Court in
paragraph 13 held that issuance of show cause notice is not an
initiation of disciplinary proceedings under the rules.
29. Having said that, coming back to the plea of Mr. Taneja, that
some charges are within limitation, suffice to state that any misconduct
related to loan account(s) which were sanctioned prior to February 03,
2018 cannot be a part of a charge sheet issued to the petitioner being
beyond four years as it is barred by limitation under Regulation 48 of
the Regulations of 1995. The Supreme Court, on a similar issue in the
case of State of U.P. and Anr. Vs. Shri Krishna Pandey, 1996 (9)
SCC 395 as under:
"6. It would thus be seen that proceedings are required
to be instituted against a delinquent officer before
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH
Signing Date:04.07.2022
18:25:59
retirement. There is no specific provision allowing the
officer to continue in service nor any order passed to
allow him to continue on re-employment till the
enquiry is completed, without allowing him to retire
from service. Equally, there is no provision that the
proceedings be initiated as disciplinary measure and
the action initiated earlier would remain unabated
after retirement. If Rule 351- A is to be operative in
respect of pending proceedings, by necessary
implication, prior sanction of the Governor to continue
the proceedings against him is required. On the other
hand, the rule also would indicate that if the officer
caused pecuniary loss or committed embezzlement etc.
due to misconduct or negligence or dereliction of duty,
then proceedings should also be instituted after
retirement against the officer as expeditiously as
possible. But the events of misconduct etc. which may
have resulted in the loss to the Government or
embezzlement, i.e., the cause for the institution of
proceedings, should not have taken place more than
four years before the date of institution of proceedings.
In other words, the departmental proceedings must be
instituted before lapse of four years from the date on
which the event of misconduct etc. had taken place.
Admittedly, in this case the officer had retired on
March 31, 1987 and the proceedings were initiated on
April 21, 1991. Obviously, the event of embezzlement
which caused pecuniary loss to the State took place
prior to four years from the date of his retirement.
Under these circumstances, the State had disabled
itself by their deliberate omissions to take appropriate
action against the respondent and allowed the officer
to escape from the provisions of Rule 351-A of the
Rules. This order does not preclude proceeding with
the investigation into the offence and taking action
thereon".
(emphasis supplied)
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH
Signing Date:04.07.2022
18:25:59
30. It follows, any misconduct committed by the petitioner within
4 years from the date of institution of the charge sheet i.e., February
03, 2018, can be instituted under Regulation 48 of the Regulations of
1995.
31. It is noted that the loan accounts between serial No.330 to 340
in Table I of the charge sheet, which were sanctioned and paid within
four years from date of issuance of charge sheet and the Articles of
Charge relates to the alleged illegalisation while sanctioning the loans
can be subject matter of the charge sheet and not the other accounts.
32. Mr. Bassi in support of his submission has relied upon the
judgment of this Court in Harpreet Singh Makkar (supra), wherein
this Court in paragraph 14 has held as under: -
"14. Insofar as the judgment referred to by Mr. Arora
in the case of Kunisetty Satyanarayana (supra) is
concerned, the Supreme Court in the said case was
primarily concerned with facts wherein the challenge
was made to the charge sheet alleging that he does not
belong to Konda Kapu community which was an ST
community and as such, was not entitled to reservation
under ST category. The Supreme Court was of the view
that the challenge to the charge sheet was premature
as a mere charge sheet or show cause notice, does not
give rise to any cause of action because it does not
amount to any adverse order which affects the rights of
any party, unless the same has been issued by a person,
who has no jurisdiction to do so. According to the
Supreme Court, it is quite possible, after considering
the reply to the show cause notice or after holding the
enquiry, the authority concerned, may drop the
proceedings or hold that the charges are not
established. It is well settled that a writ lies when a
party infringes the right of other party. A mere show
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH
Signing Date:04.07.2022
18:25:59
cause notice or the charge sheet does not infringe the
right of anyone."
(emphasis supplied)
33. The said judgment is distinguishable inasmuch as in the said
case, the charges relate back to 4 years beyond the period from the date
of initiation of departmental proceeding. Whereas in the present case,
the charge which are beyond four years are barred by limitation but the
respondent bank can initiate proceedings for those charges which are
within four years from the date of issuance of the charge sheet. This
Court has held that the respondent therein is precluded from taking
action against the petitioner. The said judgment has been challenged in
an intra Court appeal being Punjab & Sind Bank v. Harpreet Singh
Makkar, LPA 677/2015, decided on October 09, 2015, wherein the
Division Bench held as under:-
"16. The position therefore would be that against
serving employees of the appellant bank disciplinary
proceedings can be initiated for acts of omission and
commission if they constitute a misconduct irrespective
of limitation, but with respect to employees who have
superannuated from service the disciplinary
proceedings cannot be initiated if they relate to events
which took place more than 4 years before the
institution of the disciplinary proceedings."
34. The reliance placed by Mr. Taneja on the judgment in the case
of Chairman-cum-Managing Director Mahanadi Coal Fields Ltd.
(supra) and State Bank of India (supra), wherein the Supreme Court
held that the disciplinary proceedings can be initiated against the
retired bank employees, cannot be contested. The judgment is not
relevant to the issues which are considered in this case, as the
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH
Signing Date:04.07.2022
18:25:59
petitioner is not contesting that the respondent cannot initiate the
proceedings after retirement. His plea is that the same cannot be for
certain events which took place beyond the period of four years from
the date of issuance of the charge sheet. Similarly, the reliance was
placed by Mr. Taneja on A. Vamana Acharya (supra), S.M.Adiga &
Ors. (supra) and Punjab & Sind Bank (supra), are also not relevant to
the issue in question as the same are for similar proposition.
35. In so far as the submission of Mr. Taneja, the charge sheet or
show-cause notice in disciplinary proceedings should not ordinarily be
quashed by the Court and relying upon the judgments referred to in
paragraph 23 above is concerned, suffice to state, as held by the
Division Bench of this Court in the case of Punjab and Sind Bank v.
Harpreet Singh Makkar, LPA 677/2015, it is a settled law a
jurisdictional issue concerning a charge sheet can be the subject matter
of a challenge to the very initiation of disciplinary proceedings. Hence
this plea is rejected.
36. Having said that, this petition is disposed of, the respondent is
precluded from initiating departmental inquiry vide charge sheet issued
to the petitioner on February 03, 2018, to the extent that the same
relate to the charges beyond a period of 4 years preceding the date of
February 03, 2018, as the same shall be bad in law. It is ordered
accordingly.
37. Liberty is with the bank to proceed against the petitioner with
regard to those loan accounts between serial No. 330 to 340 at page
154 of the paperbook as per the Articles of Charge framed against the
petitioner and proceed in accordance with law.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH
Signing Date:04.07.2022
18:25:59
38. The petition is disposed of.
CM APPLs. 36071/2019 & 8839/2021
In view of the order passed in the petition, these applications
have become infructuous and disposed of as such.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
JULY 04, 2022/aky
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:ASHEESH
Signing Date:04.07.2022
18:25:59
