Gujarat High Court
Shaikh Tasnimuddin Ilmuddin vs Pradeep Srivastava on 22 July, 2022
Bench: Biren Vaishnav
C/SCA/5965/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 5965 of 2019
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
================================================================
1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ?
2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ?
3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy
of the judgment ?
4 Whether this case involves a substantial question
of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution
of India or any order made thereunder ?
================================================================
SHAIKH TASNIMUDDIN ILMUDDIN
Versus
PRADEEP SRIVASTAVA
================================================================
Appearance:
PARTY IN PERSON(5000) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR ASIM PANDYA, SR COUNSEL assisted by MS NALINI S LODHA(2128)
================================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
Date : 22/07/2022
CAV JUDGMENT
1. By the way of this under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India the petitioner is challenging
the order of the Appellate Authority dated
26.11.2018 by which the appellate Authority has
confirmed the order of dismissal dated
23.06.2000.
C/SCA/5965/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2022
2. Facts in brief as set out in the earlier rounds of
litigation at the hands of the Petitioner have
been elicited in one of the Oral Order dated
24.8.2018 passed in Letters Patent Appeal
No.1085 of 2017 by the Division Bench of this
Court and therefore to avoid duplicity, the Order
dated 24.8.2018 is reproduced hereunder:
"1. The present letters patent appeal arises out
of the impugned order dated 19.6.2017 passed
in the captioned writ petition. The short issue
which arises for consideration by this court is
whether the impugned order dated 4.3.2017
passed by the respondent-appellate authority
meets the requirements of Regulation 31(2) of
the Vadodara Grameen Bank (Staff Service)
Regulations, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as
'the Regulations') and the law enunciated by
the Apex Court in the cases of Vijay Singh v.
State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2012) 5
SCC 242, and Divisional Forest Officer,
Kothagudem and others v. Madhusudhan
Rao, (2008) 3 SCC 469. The appellant has
appeared as party-in-person and has invited the
attention of the court to the impugned order
dated 4.3.2017. It is asserted by the appellant
that the aforesaid order being a non-speaking
one is required to be quashed and set aside.
2. Before adverting to the submissions of the
C/SCA/5965/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2022
appellant, this court deems it appropriate to
incorporate necessary facts.
3. The appellant was serving as a Branch
Manager and he was confirmed on the said
post on 25.10.1990. Thereafter, he was
imposed punishment of stoppage of four
increments vide order dated 11.3.1997
pursuant to the charge sheet dated 6.7.1995.
Second charge sheet dated 14.7.1997 was
served upon him for the act of omission and
commission and was also awarded lowering
down of basic pay by three increments vide
order dated 20.3.1998. The aforesaid penalties
were challenged by the appellant before the
Board and thereafter he has accepted the same
as it was not challenged before any court of
law. Thereafter, third charge sheet dated
20.8.1998 was issued against him which
culminated into punishment of dismissal from
the bank's services vide order dated 23.6.2000.
The appellant thereafter preferred appeal
before the Board on 13.7.2000 against the
aforesaid order of dismissal. It is asserted by
the appellant that his appeal dated 13.07.2000
till today remains undecided.
4. The appellant challenged the dismissal order
in writ petition being Special Civil Application
No.6093 of 2000 before this court. The same
was dismissed vide order dated 3.2.2012 on
merits. It was also observed that the petition
was premature since the an alternative remedy
of appeal under Regulation 31(1) was also
available. Against the said order Letters Patent
Appeal No.501 of 2013 was preferred by the
appellant before the Division Bench. The same
was permitted to be withdrawn vide order
dated 8.4.2013 since the appellant wanted to
file review on the order dated 3.2.2012 passed
by the learned single judge. It is pertinent to
note that the Division Bench had recorded the
C/SCA/5965/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2022
statement of the appellant that the
departmental appeal filed by him was still
pending. Thereafter, the appellant filed Misc.
Civil Application No.1815 of 2014 for Review.
By the order dated 04.07.2014, the learned
single judge allowed the review application and
recalled the order dated 03.02.2012 and
modified the order to the extent by treating the
writ petition being Special Civil Application
No.6093 of 2000 as withdrawn to enable the
appellant to purse the representation made
before the Board with respect. Thus, the entire
writ petition was allowed to be withdrawn.
5. Since the aforesaid appeal remained
undecided the appellant was constrained to file
Special Civil Application No.15117 of 2015
praying that the respondents be directed to
decide the appeal filed against the penalty of
dismissal imposed upon him pursuant to the
third charge sheet. By the order dated
14.12.2016, the writ petition was disposed of
by observing as under:
"7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner
contended that the petitioner would
furnish the copy of SCA No.6093 of 2000
to the respondent and the said copy of
petition be treated as part of the appeal
already preferred. There can be no
exception to the submissions made by the
learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Accordingly, it is directed that if the
petitioner produces a copy of SCA
No.6093 of 2000 with the respondent
No.1, the same shall be treated as part of
the appeal.
8. In view of the above discussion, it is directed
that the appeal questioning the punitive
dismissal order shall be decided by respondent
within a period of four months from the date of
C/SCA/5965/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2022
the receipt of the writ of this Court, in
accordance with law. It is made clear that there
is no question of rendering any decision on the
challenge to the charge sheet made by the
petitioner on 06/12/1999. It is clarified that this
Court has not expressed anything on merits of
the case."
6. Thereafter, vide communication dated
4.3.2017 the appellate authority confirmed the
order of punishment of dismissal from service
which was challenged by the appellant in the
captioned writ petition being Special Civil
Application No.10559 of 2017. By the order
dated 19.6.2017 the learned Single Judge
dismissed the captioned writ petition by
observing thus,
"4.6 Considering the submission made by
learned advocate and material on record,
this Court is of the view that the
respondent authorities have not
committed any error while passing the
impugned order. So far examining the
merits of the order of dismissal passed by
the Disciplinary Authority is concerned,
the same was already done by the Co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in the
judgment quoted above. This Court has
also taken into consideration the material
on record and no infirmity is found
therein. No second view needs to be taken
in the matter. Considering the totality, this
petition is required to be dismissed."
The appellant has contended that the learned
Single Judge has erred in observing that the
Coordinate Bench of this court had already
decided the matter on merits. He has earnestly
pointed out that the learned Judge should have
considered that subsequently, the judgment
dated 3.2.2012 was recalled and the entire writ
C/SCA/5965/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2022
petition was allowed to be withdrawn in order
to pursue his appeal. Hence, there was no need
of examining the same again on merits. The
appellant has urged that the appeal filed by
him before the appellate authority has been
rejected by the impugned order dated 4.3.2017
without recording his contention raised in the
appeal as well as the contentions raised in
Special Civil Application No.6093 of 2000. He
has submitted that though neither the appellate
authority has referred to his appeal, nor any
reason has been assigned in the order dated
4.3.2017 or in the minutes attached to the
order. In this view of the matter he has
submitted that the order passed by the
appellate authority is illegal and a nonspeaking
one. Hence, the same needs to be quashed and
set aside.
7. On the other hand learned advocate Ms.
Nalini S. Lodha appearing on behalf of the
respondent-authorities has contended that the
order passed by the appellate authority does
not require any interference since it specifically
records that the same is passed after detailed
deliberation and discussion by the Board on the
agenda before it. She has submitted that the
minutes attached to the order dated 4.3.2017
reflects that the Board has carefully gone
through the contents of Special Civil
Application No.6093 of 2000 along with
annexures and enclosures submitted by the
appellant. She has also invited the attention of
the court to the charge sheets and the
punishment awarded to the present appellant
prior to the order of dismissal from service
from 23.6.2000. In view of the aforesaid
submissions she has urged that the order
passed by the learned Single Judge does not
require any interference.
8. This court has examined the Regulations of
C/SCA/5965/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2022
the respondent-Bank, more particularly,
Regulation 31 which provides for an appeal
filed by the delinquent before the appellate
authority. The said regulation reads as under:
"31(1) An officer or employee shall have a
right of appeal against any order passed
by an authority which injuriously affects
his interest.
(2) The appeal shall be preferred to the
appellate authority mentioned in
regulation 32 within 30 days of the date of
service of the order appealed against. The
appellate authority shall consider weather
(sic., whether) the findings of the
disciplinary authority are justified and
whether the penalty imposed is adequate
and pass suitable orders as early as
possible."
9. A plain and simple reading of the aforesaid
regulation indicates that the appellate
authority is required to consider the findings of
the disciplinary authority as to whether they
are justified and whether the penalty imposed
upon the delinquent is adequate and
accordingly suitable orders are required to be
passed. In paragraph 17 of the decision in the
case of Vijay Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh
and others (supra) the Apex Court has held
that:
"17. .. .. Undoubtedly, the statutory
authorities are under the legal obligation
to decide the appeal and revision dealing
with the grounds taken in the
appeal/revision etc., otherwise it would be
a case of non- application of mind."
In the case of Divisional Forest Officer,
Kothagudem and others v. Madhusudhan
C/SCA/5965/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2022
Rao (supra) the Apex Court has observed
thus,
"19. .. .. No doubt, the Divisional Forest
Officer dealt with the matter in detail, but
it was also the duty of the appellate
authority to give at least some reasons for
rejecting the appeal preferred by the
respondent. A similar duty was cast on the
revisional authority being the highest
authority in the Department of Forests in
the State.
Unfortunately, even the revisional
authority has merely indicated that the
decision of the Divisional Forest Officer
had been examined by the Conservator of
Forests, Khammam wherein the charge of
misappropriation was clearly proved. He
too did not consider the defence case as
made out by the respondent herein and
simply endorsed the punishment of
dismissal though reducing it to removal
from service.
20. It is no doubt also true that an
appellate or revisional authority is not
required to give detailed reasons for
agreeing and confirming an order passed
by the lower forum but, in our view, in the
interests of justice, the delinquent officer
is entitled to know at least the mind of the
appellate or revisional authority in
dismissing his appeal and/or revision. It is
true that no detailed reasons are required
to be given, but some brief reasons should
be indicated even in an order affirming the
views of the lower forum."
10. The afore-noted decisions of the Apex
Court clearly indicate that the appellate
authority or revisional authority is
C/SCA/5965/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2022
required to give detailed reasons for
agreeing and confirming an order passed
by the lower forum. A perusal of the order
dated 4.3.2017 passed by the appellate
authority in the appeal filed by the
appellant reveals that the appellate
authority, except recording that, "After
detailed deliberations and on going
through the order of the judgment passed
by the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat
dated 15.12.2016 in Special Civil
Application No.15117 of 2015, your
representation dated 21.12.2016 along
with copy of Special Civil Application
No.6093 of 2000, all the relevant papers,
documents placed before the Board in
respect of your appeal and taking into
consideration the grounds raised in the
appeal/Special Civil Application No.6093
of 2000, keeping in view the gravity of
charges proved and considering the prima
facie and extenuating circumstances, the
Board came to the conclusion that the
punishment of "dismissal from Bank's
service with effect from 23.6.2000"
imposed upon you by the Chairman &
Disciplinary Authority vide order dated
23.6.2000 is quite appropriate and the
Board did not see any reason to interfere
with the said order of the Disciplinary
Authority." has not recorded any findings
dealing with the findings of the
disciplinary authority.
11. It is not disputed by the respondents
that the appeal filed by the appellant still
remains to be be undecided. The order
dated 4.3.2017 is bereft of any reasons for
confirming the findings recorded by the
disciplinary authority. The appellate
authority has not even referred to the
appeal of the appellant filed on 13.7.2000.
C/SCA/5965/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2022
The contentions raised by him in his
appeal before the appellate authority or
the contentions raised in the writ petition
being Special Civil Application No.6093 of
2000 have not been referred at all. This
court has also examined the papers of
Special Civil Application No.6093 of 2000.
The writ petition contains detailed facts of
the departmental inquiry which was
initiated against the appellant as well as
various grounds and contentions raised
therein assailing the same. None of the
aforesaid contentions are dealt with by the
appellate authority. It was imperative
upon the appellate authority to deal with
all the contentions raised in the appeal
and the writ petition since in the order
dated 15.12.2016 passed in Special Civil
Application No.15117 of 2015, this court
had directed the respondent- authorities
to treat the petition being Special Civil
Application No.6093 of 2000 as part of the
appeal. It was further directed to the
respondent authorities to decide the same
in accordance with law within a period of
four months. Except a bare reference of
the aforesaid judgment as well as the
number of the writ petition, the appellate
authority has not dealt with any of the
contentions raised therein. In the
considered opinion of this court, the order
passed by the appellate authority dated
4.3.2017 and the minutes do not meet
with the requirements of the law
enunciated by the Supreme Court as well
as the Regulations of the respondent Bank
and the same suffer from the non-
application of mind. As reflectible from the
minutes, it appears that the appellate
authority was influenced with the
imposition of the past penalties on the
appellant. Thus, the appellate order being
C/SCA/5965/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2022
a non-speaking order deserves to be
quashed.
12. Reliance placed by the learned Single
Judge on the observations made in the
judgment and order dated 03.02.2012
dismissing the writ petition being Special
Civil Application No.6093 of 2000 filed by
the appellant was uncalled for since the
same was subsequently recalled vide
order dated 04.07.2014 passed in review
application No.1815 of 2014, and the
entire writ petition was allowed to be
withdrawn in order to enable the
appellant to pursue his
representation/appeal.
Significantly, one of the reasons that
influenced the learned Singe Judge while
dismissing the Special Civil Application
No.6093 of 2000 was non filing of an
appeal under Regulation 31(1). The fact of
pendency of the appeal dated 13.07.2000
was not pointed out at the time of passing
of the judgment dated 03.02.2012, and the
attention was only drawn in the review
application. When the same was pointed
out, the learned single judge recalled the
judgment dated 03.02.2012. Thus, with
profound respect, the learned Single
Judge while deciding the captioned writ
petition fell in error in considering the
observations made in the judgment dated
03.02.2012 in wake of the fact that the
same was subsequently recalled and the
appeal of the appellant was still pending.
13. As a consequence, the present letters
patent appeal is allowed. Resultantly, the
writ petition being Special Civil
Application No.10559 of 2017 is allowed
to the following extent only. The impugned
C/SCA/5965/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2022
order dated 4.3.2017 is hereby quashed
and set aside. The respondents are
directed to decide the appeal dated
13.07.2000 preferred by the appellant
along with the grounds raised in Special
Civil Application No.6093 of 2000 and
pass a reasoned order dealing with the
same within the period of 3 (three) months
from the date of receipt of the present
order.
14. Since the letters patent appeal is
disposed the civil application does not
survive. The same stands disposed of
accordingly."
Order in Speaking to Minutes:
"1. The present Note for Speaking to Minutes
has been filed for correcting following
typographical errors crept in the judgment
dated 2.8.2018:
(i) On Page 2, paragraph 1, line 6, the words
'Vadodara Grameen Bank' were stated instead
of 'Panchmahal Vadodara Gramin Bank'.
(ii) On page 3, paragraph 3, line 5, the date
'20.3.1998' was written instead of '20.01.1998'.
(iii) On page 3, paragraph 3, line 8, the date
'20.8.1998' was written instead of '24.8.1998'.
(iv) On page 4, paragraph 4, line 4, the word
'purse' was written instead of 'pursue'.
(v) On page 4, paragraph 5, line 12, the date
'14.12.2016' was stated instead of '15.12.2016'.
2. Due to inadvertence, the said mistakes have
occurred in the judgment, hence the same are
C/SCA/5965/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2022
rectified as below. Hence the present judgment shall
read as thus,
(i) On Page 2, paragraph 1, line 6, the words
'Vadodara Grameen Bank' be read as
'Panchmahal Vadodara Gramin Bank'.
(ii) On page 3, paragraph 3, line 5, the date
'20.3.1998' be read as '20.01.1998'.
(iii) On page 3, paragraph 3, line 8, the date
'20.8.1998' be read as '24.8.1998'.
(iv) On page 4, paragraph 4, line 4, the word
'purse' be read as 'pursue'.
(v) On page 4, paragraph 5, line 12, the date
'14.12.2016' be read as '15.12.2016'.
3. The Speaking to Minutes is disposed of
accordingly."
3. What is evident from reading the aforesaid order
is that the Division Bench quashed the order of
the Appellate Authority and directed the Bank to
hear the Appeal afresh. It is after this order
dated 2/08/2018 that the Appellate Authority
passed the impugned order.
4. Mr. Shaikh has appeared as Party-In-Person and
has challenged the aforesaid order of the
C/SCA/5965/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2022
Appellate Authority on the following amongst
other grounds:
a). He would submit that the Appellate
Authority has passed the order without
taking into consideration the orders passed
by this Court from time to time in the case of
the Petitioner. He would submit that though
there was a direction to consider the memo
of the Petition and the grounds raised
therein in Special civil application No.6093
of 2000 the order when read indicates that
the Appellate authority has not taken the
same into consideration.
b). The petitioner would submit that the order
is unjust and improper and the rule which
requires the Bank while deciding the Appeal that
there should not be injustice has been violated in
as much as that the order of the disciplinary
C/SCA/5965/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2022
authority has been confirmed without application
of mind.
c). The Petitioner would submit that in his
service career the probation was extended in
colourable exercise of power and the Appellate
Authority had become a prosecutor.
d). The Petitioner would submit that the
Petitioner had suffered a grave accident while in
service and as a result of the accident had
suffered incapacity and therefore the absence
was justified and it was a case of victimisation
that even on the earlier counts two charge sheets
were issued to him for remaining unauthorizedly
absent resulting into illegal penalties. He would
submit that the absence was justified as the
petitioner's physical condition was compromised
due to the accident and at times during the
course of discharge of his duties the petitioner
C/SCA/5965/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2022
needed to rest for sometime and that was taken
as an act of indiscipline.
e). The Petitioner would further take the court
through the orders passed by this Court in the
earlier round on 15/12/2016 in Special Civil
Application No.15117 of 2015 and submit that
the Court had issued specific directions to hear
the Appeal taking into consideration the Memo of
the Petition which was not done.
f). He would submit that despite the physical
problems the petitioner had to the best of his
abilities discharged his duties and by two earlier
charge sheets the Petitioner was victimized. He
would submit that the Petitioner's dismissal from
service was on account of victimisation
repeatedly.
g). The Petitioner would submit that the
C/SCA/5965/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2022
Petitioner had to approach this Court,the court
initially did not interfere with the orders of the
appellate authority and the dismissal order
however his appeal was allowed with a direction
to decide the same in accordance with the
Regulations of the Bank which was not done
hence the present Petition challenging the order
of the Appellate Authority dated 26.11.2018.
h). The Petitioner submits that the Appellate
Authority under the Regulations was bound to
review or change the decision of the disciplinary
authority and while passing the order reiterating
that they agreed with the order of penalty was
exercise which was arbitrary and unjust.
i). Mr. Shaikh - Party-in-Person would further
submit that the Bank had committed gross
irregularity in dismissing the Appeal when the
Inquiry was carried out by an Inquiry Officer Shri
C/SCA/5965/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2022
Chauhan as the cadre officer equal in rank of the
Petitioner. Request to the Inquiry Officer to
furnish documents was also not entertained and
the same therefore resulted in passing an order
which was in violation of the principles of natural
justice.
k). The Petitioner would with tendering a
separate synopsis submit that the true spirit of
the order by which the appellate authority was
expected to decide the appeal in consonance with
the directions of the Division Bench was not
followed resulting into grave injustice to the
Petitioner.
5. Mr. Asim Pandya, learned Senior Advocate has
appeared with Ms Nalini Lodha for the
respondent Bank. He would make the following
submissions:
C/SCA/5965/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2022
a). Mr. Pandya would submit that the order of
the Appellate Authority confirming the order of
the disciplinary authority dated 23.6.2000 is just
and proper. It is a reasoned order where not only
the Appeal in the form of the letter as referred to
in the order of this Court in SCA No.15117 of
2015 but the memo and the grounds taken in SCA
6093 of 2000 as directed by the Division Bench
are taken into consideration.
b). Mr. Pandya would take the Court through
the Affidavit-in-reply filed by the Bank and submit
that each and every ground raised in the Memo
of SCA was considered and a separate Annexure
to the Appeal setting out the ground raised and
the response of the Appellate Authority set out
would indicate that there has been a compliance
and there has been total application of mind by
the Appellate Authority in passing the order in
Appeal. The order is a reasoned order and
C/SCA/5965/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2022
therefore this Court in its exercise of powers
under Article 226 of the Constitution Of India
ought not to interfere with the order passed by
the Appellate Authority when it is not the case of
the Petitioner that the same has been passed in
violation of principles of natural justice. He would
submit that the scope for interfering with the
order of a disciplinary authority based on
departmental proceedings carried out by the
employer in consonance with the procedure and
thereafter when the order is confirmed by the
Appellate Authority the jurisdiction of the Court
is restricted and no such grounds so as to
suggest any violation of procedural laws or
violation of principles of natural justice has been
suggested by the Petitioner to warrant
interference by this Court under Article 226 of
the Constitution Of India.
c). Mr. Pandya would submit that sufficient play
C/SCA/5965/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2022
in the joints was given the Petitioner in as much
as on two occasions charge sheets were issued to
the Petitioner for unauthorized absence and on
two occasions the Petitioner when imposed a
penalty was told to show improvement in his
conduct which he did not as a result of which
when he repeated the same nature of misconduct
there was no alternative for the Bank but to
impose a Penalty of dismissal from service by an
order dated 23.6.2000.
d). Mr. Pandya would invite the Court's
attention to the chronology of dates filed to take
an overview of the Petitioner's conduct and
litigation before this court where even his
challenge to the Charge Sheet and then to the
order of dismissal and appellate order had failed
and the Division Bench had given a limited scope
of considering the Appeal after taking into
consideration the memo of the Petition and then
C/SCA/5965/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2022
pass a fresh order which the Appellate Authority
had passed and which was just and proper.
6. Having considered the submissions made by the
Party-In-Person and Mr. Pandya learned Senior
Advocate for the Bank,before I go into the
justification of passing of the order of the
Appellate Authority dated 26.11.2018 which is
under challenge, the synopsis of the Bank
tendered before this Court would give a brief
idea and the direction to the Court in the course
it needs to traverse into.
Sr. Date Particulars
No.
1 25.04.19 The appellant joined the bank as an
88 officer and worked in various
branches of the bank
2 06.07.19 Appellant was charge sheeted for
95 the first time for not being
punctual in his office timing and
being guilty of absenteeism
3 11.03.19 All the charges leveled against the
97 appellant were proved in the
department enquiry and
punishment was imposed upon the
C/SCA/5965/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2022
appellant by stoppage of 4
increments by order dated
11.03.1997
4 14.07.19 Appellant was charge sheeted for
97 the second time for absenteeism
and late coming
5 20.01.19 The appellant admitted all charges
98 leveled against him in the hearing
held on 27.09.1997 and again
before the Chairman and the
Disciplinary Authority in the
hearing held on 20.01.1998 and
appellant was imposed with the
punishment of lowering down of
the basic pay by 3 increments by
order dated 20.01.1998
During the course of proposed
punishment hearing, the appellant
requested to give one more
opportunity to improve and assured
for non-recurrence of
irregularities. The appellant
assured to stay at Head Quarter
and to work with sincerity and
dedication.
6 14.07.19 Appellant was suspended from
98 service w.e.f. 14.07.1998 for gross
insubordination, indecent and
disorderly behavior
7 24/28.08. Appellant was charge sheeted third
1998 time due to persistent disobedience
of the instructions of the higher
authorities and non-observance of
punctuality of timing and
remaining frequently absent from
duty unauthorizedly
8 23.06.20 Appellant was dismissed from
00 service
Instead of preferring Appeal
C/SCA/5965/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2022
against the order of dismissal,
before the Board of Directors as
per prevailing Panchmahal
Vadodara Gramin Officers
Employers Service Regulations, the
appellant filed Special Civil
Application no. 6093/2000 before
this Hon'ble Court challenging the
order of dismissal dated
23.06.2000
9 03.02.20 The SCA 6093/2000 was dismissed
12 by order dated 03.02.2012
(pg.
338-
343)
10 08.04.20 LPA 466/2013 against order dated
13 (pg. 03.02.2012 was filed by the
345- appellant with Civil Application for
346) Condonation of Delay No.
3358/2013 seeking Condonation of
delay of 375 days caused in filing
LPA. The said LPA was withdrawn
being not pressed by order dated
08.04.2013
MCA 1815/2014 for recall of the
order dated 03.02.2012 passed in
SCA on the ground that the
petitioner had preferred an Appeal
dated 06.12.1999 before the
Appellant Authority which is
pending adjudication. The so-called
Appeal dated 06.12.1999 was filed
after the 3rd charge sheet was
issued but before passing the order
of dismissal / termination dated
23.06.2000
11 04.07.20 Misc. Civil Application 1815/2014
14 in SCA 6093 of 2000 with Civil
(pg. Application (for Condonation of
350- Delay no. 7458/2013) was filed by
C/SCA/5965/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2022
351) the appellant in SCA 6093/2000 so
as to pursue the so-called Appeal
dated 06.12.1999 pending before
the respondent bank. Order dated
03.02.2012 was recalled and
modified to the extent the SCA
6093 of 2000 shall be treated to
have been disposed as withdrawn
so as to enable the appellant to
pursue the representation with
respect to third charge sheet
framed against the appellant
12 31.12.20 By communication dated
14 31.12.2014, the decision of the
Board was conveyed to the
appellant with respect to the
Appeal dated 06.12.1999 stated to
have been pending. It was stated
that the Board did not see any
merit to interfere in the decision of
the Chairman and Disciplinary
Authority Since the appellant failed
to prefer Appeal within the
stipulated period of 30 days
13 Sept., The appellant filed SCA
2015 15117/2015 before this Hon'ble
Court seeking direction to the
respondent bank to decide the
Appeal dated 13.07.2000 and to
hear the Appeal dated 06.12.1999
on merits
14 15.12.20 SCA 15117/2015 was disposed of
16 by this Hon'ble Court with a
(pg.352- direction to the respondent inter-
356) alia to treat the copy of Memo of
SCA 6093/2000 as part of Appeal
and the same be decided within a
period of 4 months from the date of
receipt of writ of this Court in
accordance with law. The Hon'ble
C/SCA/5965/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2022
Court made it clear that there is no
question of rendering any decision
on the challenge to the charge
sheet dated 06.12.1999
15 04.03.20 The respondent bank by
17 communication dated 04.03.2017
conveyed to the appellant inter-alia
as under:
"The Board discussed the agenda
at length after detailed
deliberations and on going through
the order / judgment passed by the
Hon'ble High curt of Gujarat at
Ahmedabad on 15.12.2016, your
representation dated 21.12.2016
along with copy of SCA 6093/2000
all the relevant papers / documents
placed before the Board in respect
of your appeal and taking into
consideration the grounds raised in
the appeal / SCA no. 6043/2000,
keeping in view the gravity of the
charges proved and considering
the prima facie and extenuating
circumstances the Board came to
the conclusion that the punishment
of "Dismissal from Bank's services
w.e.f. 23.06.2000" imposed upon
you by the Chairman and
Disciplinary Authority vide order
dated 23.06.2000 is quite
appropriate and by Board did not
see any reason to interfere in the
said order of the Disciplinary
Authority. The certified copy of the
minutes of the relevant agenda of
the Board meeting dated
23.02.2017 is enclosed herewith
for your information."
C/SCA/5965/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2022
16 19.06.20 The Ld. Single Judge by order
17 dated 19.06.2017 dismissed the
(pg. SCA 10559/2017 challenging the
357- decision dated 23.02.2017 taken in
368) the meeting and communication /
order dated 04.03.2017
17 02.08.20 LPA 1085/2017 preferred against
18 the order dated 19.06.2017 passed
24.08.20 in SCA 1059/2017, was allowed by
18 (pg. order dated 02.08.2018 with
126- modification vide order dated
139) 24.08.2018 whereby the order
dated 04.03.2017 was quashed and
set aside and the respondent BGGB
was directed to decide the appeal
dated 13.07.2000 alongwith the
grounds raised in SCA 6093/2000
and pass a reasoned order dealing
with the same within a period of
three months from the date of
receipt of the order
18 26.11.20 The Board by order dated
18 26.11.2018 unanimously resolved
04.12.20 to uphold the decision of the
18 (pg. Chairman and Disciplinary
369- Authority of imposing punishment
389) of "dismissal from bank's service
w.e.f. 23.06.2000" upon Mr. T.I.
Shaikh by order dated 23.06.2000
and the Board rejected the appeal
preferred by Mr. T.I. Shaikh, the
petitioner by a reasoned order
dated 26.11.2018 which was
communicated to the petitioner on
04.12.2018
19 26.03.20 This Hon'ble Court issued notice
19 returnable on 22.04.2019 in
respect of captioned SCA
no.5965/2019 and affidavit in reply
to the same has been filed by the
respondent (pg. 390-468)
20 16.04.20 Misc. Civil Application (Contempt)
C/SCA/5965/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2022
19 11/2019 filed by the petitioner
(pg. 7- against the respondent was
8) disposed of with the following
observations:
"In view of the above, we are not
inclined to proceed further with the
present application filed under The
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
However, it will be open for the
applicant to take appropriate steps
in accordance with law, if any
grievance still exists, except the
contempt proceedings.:
21 09.06.20 LPA 446/2021 in SCA 5965/2019
21 filed by the petitioner against the
(pg. 9) order of Ld. Single Judge for
placing the matter for hearing after
physical hearing commences, was
disposed of with clarification that it
would be open for the appellant to
request the Ld. Single Judge for
listing of matters after July, 2021
by filing a fresh application with
such a request
22 30.11.20 Civil Application 1/2020 filed by the
21 petitioner in the captioned SCA
(pg. 10) was disposed of as not pressed
23 30.11.20 CA 1/2021 in the captioned SCA
21 was allowed and main matter was
(pg. 11) ordered to be listed for hearing on
04.02.2022
7. Reading the synopsis would indicate that initially
the Petitioner was charge-sheeted on 6.7.1995
for the ground of being absent and not being
C/SCA/5965/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2022
punctual in his office timings. The Charges
levelled against him were proved and the
petitioner was imposed a penalty of stoppage of
4 increments by an order dated 11.3.1997
8. A second charge sheet was issued to the
Petitioner on 14.7.1997 for absenteeism and late
coming. The Petitioner admitted all the charges
and in hearing held on 27.09.1997 and after
hearing him on 20.1.1998 a penalty of lowering
down the basic pay by 3 increments was imposed
by an order dated 20.1.1998.
9. Both these orders imposing the penalties
attained finality as they were not a subject
matter of challenge before any of the forums,
namely either before the Appellate Authority or
before this Court. That observation has also been
made by this Court in the proceedings filed by
the Petitioner on the earlier occasions before this
C/SCA/5965/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2022
Court. When these penalties were imposed the
Petitioner had assured the Bank that if given a
chance to improve he would stay at the
headquarter and work with sincerity and
dedication.
10. Having failed to keep his promise and when he
continued to be irregular the Petitioner had to be
suspended by the Bank by an order dated
14.7.1998 for gross insubordination,indecent and
disorderly behaviour. A charge sheet was issued
to him on 24/28.08.1998.
11. Reading the Charge Sheet would indicate that
the Petitioner was not staying at the
Headquarters when he was transferred from
Shankerpura Branch to Limbdi and on several
occasions he was reminded to remain at the
headquarters. The Petitioner had remained
absent unauthorizedly for a period from
C/SCA/5965/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2022
14.3.1998 to 17.3.1998, 23.3.1998 to 2.4.1998
without submitting any leave applications though
he was a Branch Manager. He continued to
remain absent from 2.4.1998 and again remained
absent on 13.4.1998 and on 15.4.1998. Reading
the charge indicates that the Petitioner came to
the Bank on 14.4.1998 which was a public
holiday and on 15.4.1998 again he had left the
Bank immediately after coming and then had
returned at 2.00 pm and when asked to submit a
leave application the Petitioner refused to do so.
One of the other charge was also of indecent and
disorderly behaviour when on 23.6.1998 though
the Manager was present the Petitioner left the
Bank at the opening hours by informing the
Branch Manager that he was going for tea and
then returned at 1.30 pm and when asked to
submit a leave report he refused to do so and
made an unworthy statement. Similar indecent
behaviour has been set out in the charge sheet
C/SCA/5965/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2022
dated 24/28.08.1998 which apparently indicates
that, though having let-off on two earlier
occasions with penalties of stoppage of
increments,the Petitioner made no effort to mend
his ways and continued to remain on
unauthorized leave to warrant disciplinary
action.
12. After a detailed inquiry and based on a report
submitted by the Inquiry Officer on
13.3.2000,the Petitioner was imposed a penalty
dated 23.6.2000 of dismissal from service.
13. It is hereafter that the Petitioner started to
engage the Bank in litigation where he filed the
first Petition challenging the order of dismissal
dated 23.6.2000.
14. On 3.2.2012, this Court dismissed the Petition
being SCA No.6093 of 2000. The order dated
C/SCA/5965/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2022
3.2.2012 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this
Court reads as under:
"1. The petitioner, Shaikh Tasnimuddin
Ilmuddin, challenges the decision of the
respondent-Bank vide which the petitioner
has been dismissed from the service on
rd
23 June, 2000, by the Chairman of the
respondent-Bank.
2. Facts of this case are that petitioner was
appointed, by way of direct selection, by
the Banking Services Recruitment Board
th
on 25 April, 1988 to the post of Officer
and was, initially, posted as an officer at
village, Rampatel-Na-Muvada. Thereafter,
he worked at different branches of the
respondent-Bank and his last posting was
as an Officer in Limdi branch at Jhalod. He
was confirmed to the post of Branch
th
Manager on 25 October, 1990.
3. As per petitioner, he has been issued
three charge-sheets i.e. dated 06.07.1995,
14.07.1997 and final charge-sheet on
24.08.1998, which is the subject-matter of
this writ-petition, as a result of which he
has been removed from the service.
4. It is, further, his case that after the
rd
receipt of 3 charge-sheet, dated
24.08.1998, he submitted his reply to the
said charge-sheet. However, the Bank did
not accept his reply and initiated
departmental inquiry at Godhra and one
Mr. P.M. Chauhan, who was an officer, at
the relevant point of time, in the same
cadre of the petitioner, was appointed as
C/SCA/5965/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2022
inquiry officer.
5. Inquiry officer submitted his findings vide
report dated 13.03.2000, holding all the
charges having been proved. Thereafter, a
copy of the findings contained in the
report of the inquiry officer was supplied
to the petitioner. Petitioner made
representation against the proposed
punishment. However, keeping in view the
nature of charges, the defence and other
circumstances including his past conduct,
the petitioner was dismissed from service.
6. I have heard learned Counsel for the
parties and have gone through the
relevant record with their assistance.
Learned Counsel for the petitioner
submitted that at various stages the
petitioner made representations to the
respondent-Bank regarding the difficulties
being faced by him. However, no
favourable action was taken. It is
submitted that in pursuance of the first
charge-sheet, he submitted the detailed
reply wherein the fact regarding the
accident and difficulties in travelling were
mentioned. However, the respondent
authorities considering the petitioner to
be deliberately abstaining from his duties,
arbitrarily imposed punishment of
withholding of four increments. It is,
further, submitted that even the findings
of the inquiry officer were baseless and
the detailed representation of the
petitioner has not been taken into
consideration by the respondent-Bank.
While referring to the inquiry with regard
to the third charge-sheet it was submitted
that the punishing authority has bypassed
the principles of natural justice. The
C/SCA/5965/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2022
th
Chairman's order dated 16 June, 2000,
as a whole, is devoid of any such reason,
except, mechanical statement that has
agreed with the findings of the inquiry
officer. The petitioner was not conversant
with the 'Gujarati' language and the
findings recorded by the inquiry officer on
the basis of evidence in Gujarati language,
has prejudiced the rights of the petitioner.
While relying upon these averments, it has
been submitted that the impugned order is
liable to be quashed.
7. On the other hand, learned Counsel for
the respondent-Bank has repeated the
arguments and has contended that after
supplying the first charge-sheet to the
petitioner, the evidence were recorded.
The petitioner participated in the inquiry
proceedings and taking into account the
material on record, inquiry report was
submitted.
He, further, submitted that the Chairman
and the disciplinary authority, while
taking into consideration the gravity of the
charges, have imposed the punishment,
which is well reasoned and justifiable in
this case.
8. I have given my thoughtful consideration
to the submissions of both the sides.
By way of this petition, the petitioner has
also challenged the punishments imposed
upon him by way of two departmental
inquiries conducted earlier. However, the
same cannot be discussed, herein, in view
of the fact that no appeal or revision has
been filed against those findings, which
has been accepted by the petitioner and
C/SCA/5965/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2022
which have become final way back in the
year 1995-1997. Even otherwise, the
petitioner seems to have admitted his
guilty and a lenient view has been taken,
while awarding punishment in earlier two
inquiries.
As far as third inquiry i.e. dated
th
24 August, 1998, is concerned, the
petitioner has been issued the charge-
sheet and the relevant documents relied
upon by the respondent-Bank. The
contention of the petitioner regarding
non-supply of the documents is baseless,
in view of the inquiry proceedings dated
19.12.1998, wherein the two copies of the
all the relevant documents were supplied
to the presenting officer and out of the
two sets of copies, one set of copies was
supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner
was, further, provided with an opportunity
of examining the original documents, the
copies of which were duly given to him. It
is, further, clear from the affidavit-in-reply
filed on behalf of the respondents that
after proposing the punishment, the
petitioner submitted his representation,
and thereafter, final order has been
passed.
9. The arguments of learned Counsel for the
petitioner that the petitioner was not
conversant with the Gujarati language and
his right has been prejudiced, once again,
is devoid of any force, in view of the fact
that, at the time of entering into service,
the petitioner had filled-up an application,
wherein it has been specifically mentioned
that apart from English and Hindi, the
petitioner knows to read and write
Gujarati language. Otherwise also, he
participated in the previous inquiries in
C/SCA/5965/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2022
the year 1995 and 1997 and during those
inquiries, he never raised objection with
regard to language.
The past conduct of the petitioner, though,
may not be the basis of his removal from
service. However, it cannot be lost sight of
the fact that in pursuance to the earlier
inquiries the proposal for removal from
service was moved. However, later on,
taking a lenient view his punishment was
reduced and order regarding stoppage of
four increments was passed.
10. Coming to the Court, by the petitioner, by
way of present writ-petition also seems to
be premature in view of Regulation-31(1)
and 32 of the Staff Service
Regulations(Amendment), 1982. As per
the Regulation-31(1), "An officer or
employee shall have a right of appeal
against any order passed by an authority
which injuriously affects his interest." The
appeal is required to be preferred to the
appellate authority mentioned in
Regulation-32, within 30 days from the
date of service of the order, appealed
against. Further, Regulation-32 deals with
an appeal for which an officer or an
employee of the Bank is entitled to.
Otherwise also, this Court cannot sit as a
Court of appeal in disciplinary
proceedings of the respondent-Bank,
where no infirmity of irregularity in
conducting of inquiry has been established
or proved by the petitioner.
11. As a result of the above discussion, this
writ-petition must fail and is DISMISSED,
accordingly. Rule is discharged."
C/SCA/5965/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2022
15. The Court in para 8 of the order has taken note
of the fact that earlier the proposals were moved
for dismissal of the Petitioner but however taking
a lenient view his punishment was reduced and
order of stoppage of increments was passed. The
Petition was dismissed as premature as there
was a remedy by way of an Appeal.
16. The Petitioner filed an Appeal being Letters
Patent Appeal No.466 of 2013 against the order
dated 3.2.2012. The LPA was withdrawn on
8.4.2013.
17. What is evident on reading the synopsis
produced by the Bank that the Petitioner
preferred Review and other proceedings which
may not be worth consideration as far as the
present controversy is concerned.
18. The Petitioner then filed SCA No.15117 of 2015
C/SCA/5965/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2022
before this Court wherein this Court by an order
dated 15.12.2016 directed the Bank to decide
the Appeal filed challenging the order dated
23.6.2000 by treating the Memo of SCA 6093 of
2000 as grounds of Appeal. The Court made it
clear that there was no purpose of deciding the
Appeal dated 6.12.1999 which was filed against
the charge-sheet.
19. The order dated 15.12.2016 passed by this Court
in SCA 15117 of 2015 reads as under:
"Having regard to the nature of
controversy involved in the petition and the
arguments made before this Court, it is
deemed fit to decide this petition at
admission stage.
2. The petitioner was a Branch Manager of
respondent No.1Baroda Gujarat Gramin Bank,
which was earlier known as Panchmahal
Vadodara Gramin Bank. Three different
chargesheets alleging unauthorized
absenteeism and the impunctuality of the
petitioner were served upon the petitioner for
different periods and he was proceeded
against in three different departmental
inquiries. He was eventually found guilty of the
alleged misconduct and was visited with
the three different penalties in the said
C/SCA/5965/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2022
three proceedings. The petitioner accepted
the punishment imposed upon him during the
first two inquiries by not challenging the same in
departmental appeal. So far as the third inquiry is
concerned, the petitioner filed an appeal on
06/12/1999 challenging the issuance of
chargesheet to him. The said appeal was not
decided; but eventually during the pendency of
this petition, the petitioner was communicated
that the said appeal being beyond the specified
period of 30 days under the relevant regulations,
has not been entertained. The petitioner
demanded the order rejecting his appeal
which was not made available to him, but
the respondent insisted that the
communication was sufficient disposal of the
appeal. However, the learned Counsel for
the petitioner is unable to counter the
submissions made by learned Counsel for
the respondent that no appeal against the charge-
sheet is contemplated under the relevant
regulations. In that view of the matter, the
prayer of the petitioner asking the respondent
to decide the appeal filed against the third
chargesheet cannot be granted. The same is,
therefore, declined.
3. It appears that the petitioner in the third
chargesheet was visited with the penalty of
dismissal on 23/06/2000 which came to be
challenged before this Court in SCA No.6093
of 2000. Eventually, after preferring LPA
No.501 of 2013 and after withdrawal of the
same, with a view to move an application
for review of the order dated 23/06/2000
passed in SCA No.6093 of 2000, the said appeal
was permitted to be withdrawn with a view to
pursue pending departmental appeal. Such an
appeal was filed by the petitioner as indicated on
page No.80 of this petition which reads thus:
"Board of Directors Panchmahal Vadodara Gramin
Bank - H.O. Godhra. Re : Prayer for relief Ref. :
C/SCA/5965/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2022
Prayer for relief u/s 32 of socalled PVGB Staff
Rules and Regulations dated 06/12/1999. Special
Civil Application No.6093, dtd. 26/06/2000. Dear
Sirs: I had humbly prayed for relief vide para (T),
serial nos.01 to 14 by my prayer dtd. 06/12/1999.
In addition to this, I had prayed before the
Lordships of High Court of Gujarat,
Ahmedabad vide para (a) to (e) in Special
Civil Application no.6093 dtd. 26/06/2000. A copy
of which is enclosed herewith for your
kind perusal and considerations. Therefore, I
humbly request you to provide relief as stated
earlier vide my prayer dtd. 06/12/1999 and
hereinabove vide para (a) to (e) of SCA 6093 as
early as possible. The decision regarding it
may be communicated to me in writing. Hoping
for an early relief. Thanking you in anticipation.
Yours faithfully, sd/ (Shaikh Tasnim) Date :
13.07.2000 Place: Ahmedabad Encl.: SCA No.6093
dtd. 26/06/2000"
4. It would appear that the said writing of the
petitioner is more in the nature of letters than an
appeal, but substantially it can be seen
that the prayer made by the petitioner are those
made by him in SCA No.6093 of 2000; even,
as the petitioner has clearly stated that he is
interested in pressing for the prayers as made
in clause (a) to (e) of SCA No.6093 of
2000, in the departmental appeal.
5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the petitioner confines his arguments only to
the aspect of not deciding the appeal afore-
stated i.e. appeal against the order of
dismissal in the third inquiry only.
6. There can be no denial to the fact that it is
obligatory for the respondent to decide the
appeal; even though it may not be in the required
format, as the subject matter of the appeal is
made clear by the petitioner in the said appeal
C/SCA/5965/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2022
memo itself. Therefore, interest of justice would
be served by directing the respondent to decide
the appeal as indicated herein above within a
specified time.
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended
that the petitioner would furnish the copy
of SCA No.6093 of 2000 to the respondent and
the said copy of petition be treated as part of
the appeal already preferred. There can be
no exception to the submissions made by the
learned Counsel for the petitioner.
Accordingly, it is directed that if the
petitioner produces a copy of SCA No.6093 of
2000 with the respondent No.1, the same shall be
treated as part of the appeal.
8. In view of the above discussion, it is
directed that the appeal questioning the
punitive dismissal order shall be decided by
respondent within a period of four months from
the date of the receipt of the writ of this Court, in
accordance with law. It is made clear that there is
no question of rendering any decision on the
challenge to the chargesheet made by the
petitioner on 06/12/1999. It is clarified that this
Court has not expressed anything on merits of the
case.
9. In the aforesaid terms, this petition is
disposed of."
20. By an order dated 4.3.2017 the Appeal was
dismissed and the order passed by the Appellate
Authority has been quoted in the synopsis and
the same reads as under:
15 04.03.2017 The respondent bank by
C/SCA/5965/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2022
communication dated
04.03.2017 conveyed to the
appellant inter-alia as under:
"The Board discussed the
agenda at length after detailed
deliberations and on going
through the order / judgment
passed by the Hon'ble High curt
of Gujarat at Ahmedabad on
15.12.2016, your representation
dated 21.12.2016 along with
copy of SCA 6093/2000 all the
relevant papers / documents
placed before the Board in
respect of your appeal and
taking into consideration the
grounds raised in the appeal /
SCA no. 6043/2000, keeping in
view the gravity of the charges
proved and considering the
prima facie and extenuating
circumstances the Board came
to the conclusion that the
punishment of "Dismissal from
Bank's services w.e.f.
23.06.2000" imposed upon you
by the Chairman and
Disciplinary Authority vide
order dated 23.06.2000 is quite
appropriate and by Board did
not see any reason to interfere
in the said order of the
Disciplinary Authority. The
certified copy of the minutes of
the relevant agenda of the
Board meeting dated
23.02.2017 is enclosed herewith
for your information."
21. The order of the appellate authority was
C/SCA/5965/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2022
challenged by filing SCA No.10559 of 2017
which was dismissed by the Coordinate Bench of
this Court vide an order dated 19.06.2017 and
the order reads as under:
"1. Amendment is granted.
2. Challenge in this petition is made to the
decision of the Appellate Authority as
communicated to the petitioner vide letter
dated 04.03.2017, confirming the order of
punishment of dismissal of the petitioner from
service vide order dated 23.06.2000.
3. Mr. Popat, learned advocate for the
petitioner has submitted that the Appellate
Authority has not recorded any reason, while
rejecting the appeal against the order of
punishment. For that purpose, he has drawn
the attention of this Court to the contents of
letter dated 04.03.2017 (Annexure-A, page: 28).
Learned advocate for the petitioner has also
drawn the attention of this Court to the earlier
round of litigation. It is submitted that this
petition be entertained.
4. Having heard learned advocate for the
petitioner and having considered the material
on record, this Court finds as under.
4.1 The petitioner was dismissed from service
vide order dated 26.06.2000 after departmental
inquiry. The said order was challenged by the
petitioner before this Court in Special Civil
Application No.6093 of 2000.
4.2 The said petition was dismissed vide
C/SCA/5965/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2022
judgment dated 03.02.2012 and that is how the
dismissal order stood confirmed on merits. The
relevant part of the said judgment reads as
under : "6. I have heard learned Counsel for
the parties and have gone through the relevant
record with their assistance. Learned Counsel
for the petitioner submitted that at various
stages the petitioner made representations to
the respondent-Bank regarding the difficulties
being faced by him. However, no favorable
action was taken. It is submitted that in
pursuance of the first charge-sheet, he
submitted the detailed reply wherein the fact
regarding the accident and difficulties in
travelling were mentioned. However, the
respondent authorities considering the
petitioner to be deliberately abstaining from his
duties, arbitrarily imposed punishment of
withholding of four increments. It is, further,
submitted that even the findings of the inquiry
officer were baseless and the detailed
representation of the petitioner has not been
taken into consideration by the respondent-
Bank. While referring to the inquiry with
regard to the third charge-sheet it was
submitted that the punishing authority has
bypassed the principles of natural justice. The
Chairman's order dated 16th June, 2000, as a
whole, is devoid of any such reason, except,
mechanical statement that has agreed with the
findings of the inquiry officer. The petitioner
was not conversant with the 'Gujarati' language
and the findings recorded by the inquiry officer
on the basis of evidence in Gujarati language,
has prejudiced the rights of the petitioner.
While relying upon these averments, it has
been submitted that the impugned order is
liable to be quashed.
7. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the
respondent-Bank has repeated the arguments
and has contended that after supplying the first
C/SCA/5965/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2022
charge-sheet to the petitioner, the evidence
were recorded. The petitioner participated in
the inquiry proceedings and taking into
account the material on record, inquiry report
was submitted. He, further, submitted that the
Chairman and the disciplinary authority, while
taking into consideration the gravity of the
charges, have imposed the punishment, which
is well reasoned and justifiable in this case.
8. I have given my thoughtful consideration to
the submissions of both the sides. By way of
this petition, the petitioner has also challenged
the punishments imposed upon him by way of
two departmental inquiries conducted earlier.
However, the same cannot be discussed,
herein, in view of the fact that no appeal or
revision has been filed against those findings,
which has been accepted by the petitioner and
which have become final way back in the year
1995-1997. Even otherwise, the petitioner
seems to have admitted his guilty and a lenient
view has been taken, while awarding
punishment in earlier two inquiries. As far as
third inquiry i.e. dated 24th August, 1998, is
concerned, the petitioner has been issued the
chargesheet and the relevant documents relied
upon by the respondent-Bank. The contention
of the petitioner regarding non-supply of the
documents is baseless, in view of the inquiry
proceedings dated 19.12.1998, wherein the two
copies of the all the relevant documents were
supplied to the presenting officer and out of the
two sets of copies, one set of copies was
supplied to the petitioner. The petitioner was,
further, provided with an opportunity of
examining the original documents, the copies
of which were duly given to him. It is, further,
clear from the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf
of the respondents that after proposing the
punishment, the petitioner submitted his
representation, and thereafter, final order has
C/SCA/5965/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2022
been passed.
9. The arguments of learned Counsel for the
petitioner that the petitioner was not
conversant with the Gujarati language and his
right has been prejudiced, once again, is devoid
of any force, in view of the fact that, at the time
of entering into service, the petitioner had
filled-up an application, wherein it has been
specifically mentioned that apart from English
and Hindi, the petitioner knows to read and
write Gujarati language. Otherwise also, he
participated in the previous inquiries in the
year 1995 and 1997 and during those inquiries,
he never raised objection with regard to
language. The past conduct of the petitioner,
though, may not be the basis of his removal
from service. However, it cannot be lost sight
of the fact that in pursuance to the earlier
inquiries the proposal for removal from service
was moved. However, later on, taking a lenient
view his punishment was reduced and order
regarding stoppage of four increments was
passed.
10. Coming to the Court, by the petitioner, by
way of present writ petition also seems to be
premature in view of Regulation-31(1) and 32
of the Staff Service Regulations(Amendment),
1982. As per the Regulation-31(1), "An officer
or employee shall have a right of appeal against
any order passed by an authority which
injuriously affects his interest." The appeal is
required to be preferred to the appellate
authority mentioned in Regulation-32, within
30 days from the date of service of the order,
appealed against. Further, Regulation-32 deals
with an appeal for which an officer or an
employee of the Bank is entitled to. Otherwise
also, this Court cannot sit as a Court of appeal
in disciplinary proceedings of the respondent-
Bank, where no infirmity of irregularity in
C/SCA/5965/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2022
conducting of inquiry has been established or
proved by the petitioner.
11. As a result of the above discussion, this
writ-petition must fail and is DISMISSED,
accordingly. Rule is discharged."
4.3 Against the said judgment dated
03.02.2012, Letters Patent Appeal No.466 of
2013 was filed. The said appeal was withdrawn
on 08.04.2013 to move review application in
the main petition.
4.4 Petitioner thereafter filed Misc. Civil
Application No.1815 of 2014 for recalling of the
judgment dated 03.02.2012, so as to enable
him to withdraw the petition as he wanted to
pursue the appeal. Said application was
allowed vide order dated 04.07.2014.
4.5 Thereafter the petitioner had again moved
this Court by filing Special Civil Application No.
15117 of 2015, which was also disposed of by
this Court vide order dated 15.12.2016
directing that the appeal questioning dismissal
of the petitioner be decided by the respondent
within a period of four months, in accordance
with law. Pursuant to the said direction of this
Court, appeal has been decided by the
respondent Bank by passing the order dated
04.03.2017. Relevant part of the said order
reads as under.
"As directed by the Hon'ble High Court of
Gujarat at Ahmedabad, the entire matter with
copy of SCA No.6093 of 2000 alongwith
annexures / enclosures was put before the
Appellate Authority i.e. Board of Directors of
our Bank in its meeting held on 23.02.2017 for
taking appropriate view / decision on your
appeal / SCA No.6093 of 2000. The Board
discussed the agenda at length. After detailed
C/SCA/5965/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2022
deliberations and on going through the order /
judgment passed by the Hon'ble High Court of
Gujarat at Ahmedabad on 15.12.2016, your
representation dated 21.12.2016 alongwith
copy of SCA No.6093 of 2000, all the relevant
papers / documents placed before the Board in
respect of your appeal and in view of gravity of
charges proved and considering the prima facie
and extenuating circumstances, the Board
came to the conclusion that the punishment of
"Dismissal from Bank's Services w.e.f.
23.06.2000" imposed upon you by the
Chairman & Disciplinary Authority vide order
dated 23.06.2000 is quite appropriate and the
Board is not see any reason to interfere in the
said order of Disciplinary Authority."
4.6 Considering the submission made by
learned advocate and material on record, this
Court is of the view that the respondent
authorities have not committed any error while
passing the impugned order. So far examining
the merits of the order of dismissal passed by
the Disciplinary Authority is concerned, the
same was already done by the Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in the judgment quoted
above. This Court has also taken into
consideration the material on record and no
infirmity is found therein. No second view
needs to be taken in the matter. Considering
the totality, this petition is required to be
dismissed.
5. For the reasons recorded above, this petition
is dismissed."
22. It is when this Order of the Court which was
challenged that the Division Bench vide its order
dated 2.08.2018 remanded the matter to decide
C/SCA/5965/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2022
the Appeal afresh and that resulted in passing
the impugned order which is under challenge in
this Petition.
23. The order of the Division Bench dated 2.08.2018
has already been quoted in the earlier part of
this Order when considering facts.
24. What emerges from the litigative pursuit of the
Petitioner is that he has at multiple times
approached this Court and assailed the action of
the Bank in dismissing him from service and
ultimately in the final analysis achieved a limited
relief of having his Appeal decided by
considering the memo of the Petition namely
SCA 6093 of 2000.
25. Mr. Shaikh Party-in-Person during the course of
submissions had relied upon a judgment
produced with his synopsis,in the case of, The
C/SCA/5965/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2022
Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board
versus C. Muddaiah dated 07/09/2007. He
had read out Para 32 of the judgment and
submitted that the Court must consider the
relevant provisions of law while granting a relief
particularly when ex-facie injustice has been
meted out to an employee. The Court, he laid
emphasis, may nay must take into account the
facts in their entirety and pass an appropriate
order in consonance with law. He would
therefore submit that what is evident from the
orders passed by this court and the
circumstances under which the Petitioner was
issued a Charge-Sheet would indicate that the
absence for which the Petitioner has been
penalized was justified looking to the accident
that had occurred resulting in his physical
incapacity.
26. Reading the current charge-sheet under
C/SCA/5965/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2022
challenge would itself indicate that to quote as
under:
"During your tenure as an officer at Limbdi
Branch of the Bank from 9.1.1998, reportedly you
committed acts of omission and commission of a
serious nature warranting your suspension from
bank's services w.e.f.14.7.1998.
You have continued to commit acts of omission and
commission by remaining absent unauthorized from
duty frequently not observing punctuality of
timings,disobeying instructions of higher
authorities,not taking initiative for development of
the business of the branch etc.
Earlier, disciplinary proceedings were instituted
twice against you. In respect of the charge-
sheet dated 16.7.1995,all the charges levelled
against you were found proved in the enquiry
whereas in respect of the charge-sheet dated
14.7.97 you had admitted all the charges
levelled against you in the hearing held on
29.9.97.You had again admitted all the charges
before the undersigned in the hearing held on
20.1.98.
You had further requested the undersigned
C/SCA/5965/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2022
during the course of proposed punishment
hearing held on 20.1.98 to give you one more
opportunity to improve and assured for non
recurrence of irregularities and that you would
work with sincerity and dedication.
You have however committed breach of
assurance given by you and persisted in
disobeying instructions of higher
authorities,non observance of punctuality of
timings, remaining frequently absent from duty
unauthorizedly, not taking initiatives in the
development of the branch business etc. You
have failed to fulfil the assurance given by
you,on which by putting trust and considering
your future, the bank had taken a lenient view
to build-up your successful future career in the
bank. You however failed to retain the trust that
the bank had put in you and persisted in
indulging as per your own will by putting aside
the interest of the institution."
27. The portion of the Charge-Sheet in bold indicates
the extent of the leeway that the Bank had given
to the Petitioner in the earlier years when he had
remained absent,despite which there was no
improvement in his conduct as the perusal of the
imputations of the present episode which led to
C/SCA/5965/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2022
his dismissal from service occurred.
28. Even when the present enquiry proceedings are
perused,the enquiry officer has specifically
recorded that the Petitioner has not submitted
any defence in response to the charges levelled
against him.
29. These circumstances do indicate that the
contentions extensively raised by the Party-In-
Person,who may not have been adept at making
pleadings on facts and legal submissions at this
stage,when examined in light of extensive
grounds set out in the bulk of pleadings, which to
a certain extent are and were irrelevant, when
the crux of the issue is examined, what emerges
is that, the Petitioner, was a Bank employee, who
on earlier two occasions had faced disciplinary
proceedings for being absent and not being
punctual and was warned not to repeat the same
C/SCA/5965/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2022
to which he had so assured and having repeated
the same misconduct for which he did not offer
any contest before the Inquiry Officer,the Bank
was left with no option but to pass an order of
dismissal from service on 23.6.2000.
30. From the restrictive nature of submissions made
by the Party-In-Person before me restricting it to
the compliance of the manner and the method of
deciding the Appeal and emphasizing the same
obviously being aware of the limited space and
scope to argue after repeated rounds of
litigation, Mr. Pandya learned Senior Advocate is
right in his submission that the scope to carry
out an exercise in the nature of appeal,by a writ
court,under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India is not available to the Petitioner.
31. Having perused the order passed by the
Appellate Authority dated 26.11.2018, the
C/SCA/5965/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2022
tabular chart with the Appellate Order would
indicate that, in the left column the
pleadings/grounds set out in SCA No.6093 of
2000 have been set out and in the right column
reasons are assigned by the Appellate Authority
which is the Board to disagree with such
submissions on merits. The Annexure setting out
reasons reproducing the ground of challenge and
the reasons therefor run into 7 pages which have
been read by the Court. The stand of the Party-
in-Person that there is no compliance of
considering the grounds as raised in the Memo
of SCA 6093 of 2000 are misconceived and an
attempt to catch the last straw after continuously
pursuing the litigation and challenging the order
of dismissal which was passed way back in the
Year 2000.
32. Extensive examination of the order of dismissal
in light of the misconduct has been at more than
C/SCA/5965/2019 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 22/07/2022
one time examined by this Court. Even if it is not
then too when there is no pleading or a ground
to hold the dismissal to be bad on account of any
procedural irregularities,as is well settled,the
Court cannot look into and re-examine the
charges and the report as if sitting in appeal over
the decision.
33. For all the aforesaid reasons, the Petition
deserved to be dismissed and, accordingly, it is
dismissed with no order as to costs. Rule is
discharged.
(BIREN VAISHNAV, J)
VATSAL S. KOTECHA
