Gauhati High Court
Narayan Chandra Das vs The Assam State Cooperative Apex Bank ... on 11 November, 2024
Author: Devashis Baruah
Bench: Devashis Baruah
Page No.# 1/8
GAHC010045832021
undefined
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WP(C)/1614/2021
NARAYAN CHANDRA DAS
S/O LATE NIBARAN CHANDRA DAS, RESIDENT OF G.N.B ROAD, DOOM
DOOMA TINSUKIA, ASSAM
VERSUS
THE ASSAM STATE COOPERATIVE APEX BANK LTD AND 2 ORS
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR PANBAZAR, GUWAHATI 01
2:THE MANAGING DIRECTOR
THE ASSAM STATE CO OPERATIVE APEX BANK LIMITED
PANBAZAR
GUWAHATI 1
3:THE INQUIRY OFFICER
ZONAL MANAGER APEX BANK LTD. NORTHERN ZONE
TEZPUR
SONITPUR
ASSAM 78400
For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. S. Dutta, Senior Advocate
Mr. G.J. Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. J.K. Goswami, Standing Counsel
Date of hearing : 11.11.2024
Date of Judgment : 11.11.2024
Page No.# 2/8
BEFORE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVASHIS BARUAH
JUDGMENT & ORDER(ORAL)
Heard Mr. S. Dutta, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. G.J.
Sharma appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. J.K. Goswami, the learned
Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.
2. The instant writ petition has been filed challenging the inquiry report dated
20.11.2012 by the Inquiry Officer; the order passed by the Managing Director
dated 29.07.2013, whereby the petitioner was dismissed from service as well as
the rejection of the appeal filed by the petitioner as communicated vide letter
dated 27.02.2020.
3. The case of the petitioner herein, is that a show cause notice dated
30.10.2010, was served upon him to show cause as to why disciplinary action
should not be initiated against him under Staff Rules 37 and 38 for his
unauthorized absence from duty for a period of 85(eighty five) days from
14.07.2010 to 28.09.2010 amounting to misconduct, gross irregularities, gross
negligence of duties. To the said show cause notice, the petitioner submitted his
reply wherein he stated that he had not violated the Staff Rules 37 and 38 as
alleged.
4. Subsequent thereto, the petitioner was served with another show cause
notice dated 07.05.2012, whereby the petitioner was asked to show cause as to
why penalties prescribed under Rule 46(a) of the Staff Rules should not be
inflicted upon him for committing gross financial irregularities, breach of trust,
violation of the bank's rules and procedures, misuse of official position and
acting in a manner detrimental to the interest of the bank. From the said show
Page No.# 3/8
cause notice it transpires that the allegation was that the petitioner had allowed
overdraft in 5 accounts without obtaining adequate securities and without
proper documents. The petitioner was therefore, asked to furnish a written reply
within 10(ten) days.
5. The petitioner thereupon submitted his written statement of defence on
01.06.2012, against the said show cause notice denying the various charges.
Pursuant thereto, the petitioner was issued another show cause notice on
08.06.2012, wherein the petitioner was asked to show cause as to why
penalties prescribed under Rule 46(a) should not be inflicted upon him for willful
negligence to duties, irregularities of attendance and unauthorized absence from
duties. The petitioner was directed to submit the written statement of defence
within 15(fifteen) days from the date of the communication.
6. The petitioner submitted another written statement on 25.06.2012, to the
additional charge framed against him stating that he was not in a sound health
when he joined the Diphu Branch of the Bank. Thereupon, one Sri Dhrubajyoti
Gogoi, Zonal Manager, Northern Zone of the Bank and Sri Partha Sarathi
Mukherjee, Accountant Tinsukia Branch, I/C Tinsukia Branch were appointed as
the Inquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer respectively.
7. Subsequent to the inquiry which was made, a report was submitted on
20.11.2012, whereby it was opined that the charges which were leveled against
the petitioner were proved. Thereupon another show cause notice was issued
on 11.02.2013 to the petitioner asking him to show cause as to why penalties
prescribed in the Rule 46(a)(vi) of the Staff Rules, 1980 should not be inflicted
upon him by supplying a copy of the inquiry report within 10(ten) days of the
receipt of the notice.
Page No.# 4/8
8. The petitioner thereupon submitted a reply. The petitioner was also given
a personal hearing in that regard. The record further reveals that the Managing
Director of the Respondent Bank passed an order in terms with Rule 46(a)(vi) of
the Staff Rules, 1980, thereby the petitioner was dismissed from service with
immediate effect. Further, it was mentioned that the period of absence during
his service in the Diphu Branch for the period of 14.07.2010 to 06.10.2010 for
85 (eighty five) days would be treated as unauthorized and accordingly, the
petitioner be granted extra-ordinary leave without pay for this period of absence
for this 85(eighty five) days. It was also mentioned that the amount recovered
from the petitioner on account of pecuniary loss caused to the bank by the
petitioner due to his irregular action be recovered from him as per law.
9. The petitioner thereupon filed an appeal on 12.08.2013, before the Board
of Directors of the Respondent Bank as per the mandate of Rule 48(c) of the
Staff Rules, 1980. The said appeal however, was not disposed of for a long time
and under such circumstances, the petitioner was compelled to file a writ
petition being WP(C) No. 4416/2018. The writ petition was disposed of by an
order dated 16.07.2018, whereby taking into account the limited prayer so
made, the Coordinate Bench of this Court directed the Respondent Bank to
dispose of the appeal by placing it in the next immediate sitting of the Board of
Directors of the bank.
10. The record reveals that the Appeal was placed before the Board of
Directors of the Respondent Bank on 28.08.2018, wherein it was resolved that
as the petitioner had failed to bring new materials to consider relaxation of his
punishment, the appeal was dismissed. This order was communicated to the
petitioner on 27.02.2020 by the Managing Director. Accordingly, the instant writ
petition was filed.
Page No.# 5/8
11. Mr. S. Dutta, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submitted that when an Appeal provision is provided in the Rules, the
Appellate Authority is required to reassess the materials on record as to whether
a case has been made out for interference. He submitted that a perusal of the
impugned resolution would show that the Board of Directors have treated the
appeal as a review and had dismissed it on the ground that no new materials
were placed. He therefore submitted that the Appellate Authority failed to
exercise the jurisdiction as per the mandate.
12. Mr. S. Dutta, the learned Senior Counsel further submitted that from the
materials on record it would be seen that the petitioner had filed the appeal
contesting the findings made in the inquiry report on merits and therefore, it
was incumbent upon the Appellate Authorities to decide the appeal on merits
and give few reasons else such an order passed by an Authority without reason
would violate the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution.
13. Mr. J.K. Goswami, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of
the Respondent Bank submitted that the petitioner was rightly dismissed taking
into account that the petitioner herein was found to be involved in financial
irregularities. He therefore, submitted that when the employer has lost
confidence upon the petitioner, the Appellate Authority had rightly not interfered
in the Appeal. He therefore, submitted that as there was no illegality in the
order passed by the Managing Director inflicting the punishment of dismissal
upon the petitioner, which aspect, the Appellate Authority had duly taken note
of and as such this Court ought not to interfere in the present proceedings.
14. This Court has duly heard the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the
parties and has perused the materials on record. This Court has also perused
the records of the proceedings which were directed to be produced by this
Page No.# 6/8
Court. It is very pertinent to take note of that apart from the resolution which
was adopted on 28.08.2018 and the communication dated 20.07.2020, there is
no other documents in the record which would suggest in any manner that any
reasons were assigned for dismissal of the Appeal same and except that the
petitioner failed to produce new materials.
15. It is a well settled principle of law that when an appeal is provided by a
Statue or by the Service Rules the Appellate Authority is required to look into
each and every aspect of the objections so raised in the appeal. The provision of
Appeal cannot be conferred with the power to revise as review in as much as
the power to revise or review is much circumscribed that the provision of
Appeal. It is also very pertinent to mention that the Respondent Bank is a State
within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and under such
circumstances, when a decision is taken by the respondents in exercise of its
Appellate jurisdiction there is a requirement for giving due reasons in as much
as without reasons being assigned it would result in the order being arbitrary
and unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.
16. From the materials on record it transpires the resolution so adopted on
20.08.2018, contained no reasons or merits. Apart from that, it appears that the
Board of Directors of the Respondent Board have decided the said appeal in a
manner in which a review jurisdiction is to be exercised in as much as the only
reason so assigned therein that no new materials were placed for reducing the
punishment.
17. From the above, it would be seen that the manner in which the Appeal
has been disposed of suffers from a arbitrariness besides being an order passed
without proper application of mind.
Page No.# 7/8
18. Accordingly, this Court therefore, taking into account that various factual
aspects have been raised as grounds of objection in the Appeal is of the opinion
that it would be in the interest of justice to direct the Board of Directors of the
Respondent Bank to decide the Appeal afresh by giving an opportunity of
personal hearing to the petitioner or his authorized representative.
19. Mr. S. Dutta, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submits that in the meantime, the petitioner had already attained the
age of superannuation and as such there is a necessity that the Appeal be
directed to be disposed of within a time frame.
20. In view of the above, this Court therefore, disposes of the instant writ
petition with the following observations and directions:
(i) The impugned resolution dated 20.08.2018, insofar as Agenda
No. 5 is concerned is set aside and quashed.
(ii) The impugned communication dated 27.02.2020, issued by the
Managing Director of the Respondent Bank to the petitioner is set
aside and quashed.
(iii) The Board of Directors of the Respondent Bank are directed to
hear the appeal afresh and in doing so provide a due opportunity of
personal hearing to the petitioner as his authorized representatives.
(iv) The Board of Directors are directed to dispose of the said
Appeal as expeditiously as possible and not later than 4(four)
months from the date of service of a certified copy of the instant
judgment upon the Managing Director of the Respondent Bank.
(v) For the sake of clarity, this Court observes that this Court had
not decided the legality and validity of the inquiry report dated
Page No.# 8/8
20.11.2012 as well as the order of the Managing Director dated
29.07.2013. Under such circumstances, the objection raised in the
Appeal filed by the petitioner remains open and unfettered by the
observations made in the instant proceedings.
21. The records which are produced are returned.
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant
