Duryodhan Manjhi vs Uco Bank Through Its ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 286 Jhar

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
              (Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction)
                    L.P.A No. 605 of 2019
                              --------
Duryodhan Manjhi, s/o Shri Radha Govind Manjhi, r/o 303,
Takshashila Apartment, South Office Para, Doranda, PO & PS-
Doranda, District-Ranchi, presently residing at Manjhi Toli, Maa
Kali Mandir Street, Bundu, PO & PS-Bundu, District-Ranchi,
Jharkhand, PIN 835204.                             ... Appellant
                            Versus

1. Uco Bank through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, having
its Head Office at 3-4 D D Block, Sector-I, Salt Lake, PO & PS-Salt
Lake, District-24 Pargana (Kolkata)- 700064.
2. Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Uco Bank, having its office
at 10, Biplabi Trailokya Maharaj Sarani, Kolkata-700001, Post Box
No. 2455, PO & PS-Dharamtala, District-24 Pargana (Kolkata).
3. The General Manager, UCO Bank, Personnel & Adminstrative
Department, 3-4 D D Block, Sector-I, Salt Lake, PO & PS- Salt Lak,
District-24 Pargana (Kolkata)- 700064.
4. The Deputy General Manager, Human Resources Management,
UCO Bank, 3-4 D D Block, Sector-I, Salt Lake, PO & PS-Salt Lak,
District-24 Pargana (Kolkata)- 700064.
5. The Deputy General Manager (Personnel Service), Personnel
Service Department, Head Office-2, 3-4 D D Block, Sector-I, Salt
Lake, PO & PS-Salt Lak, District-24 Pargana (Kolkata)- 700064.
                                                  ... Respondents
                                 With
                       L.P.A No. 276 of 2016
                                --------
1. UCO Bank, through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
having its head office at 3-4D, D Block, Sector-I, Salt Lake, PO &
PS-Salt Lake, District-24 Pargana (Kolkata)-700064 (West Bengal);
correctly addressed as its Managing Director & Chief Executive
Officer, having its head office at 10, Biplabi Trailojya Maharaj
Sarani, PO & PS-B. T. M. Sarani, District-Kolkata-700001 (West
Bengal)
2. Chairman-cum-Managing Director, having its office at 10,
Biplabi Trailojya Maharaj Sarani, Kolkata-700001, Post Box No.
2455, PS-Dharamtala, District-24 Pargana (Kolkata)-700064 (West
Bengal); correctly addressed the Managing Director & Chief
Executive Officer having its office at 10, Biplabi Trailojya Maharaj
Sarani, PO & PS-B.T.M. Sarani, District-Kolkata-700001 (West
Bengal)
3. General Manager, UCO Bank, Personnel Services Department,
3-4-DD Block, Sector-I, Salt Lake, PO & PS-Salt Lake, District-24
Pargana (Kolkata)-700064 (West Bengal)
4. Deputy General Manager, Human Resources Management, UCO
Bank, 10, Biplabi Trailojya Maharaj Sarani, Kolkata-700001
5.    Deputy General Manager, (Personnel Services), Personnel
Services Department, Head Office, UCO Bank, 3-4-DD Block,
                                     2                   L.P.A No. 605 of 2019
                                                                with
                                                        L.P.A No. 276 of 2016



Sector-I, Salt Lake, PO & PS-Salt Lake, District-24 Pargana
(Kolkata)-700064 (West Bengal)
           All being represented through the local office head being
Sri Ravi Bhushan Sahay, s/o Shree Bidya Nand Bhushan Sahay;
Zonal Manager, UCO Bank, Sainik Market, Main Road, PO-GPO,
PS-Kotwali, District-Ranchi (Jharkhand).             ... Appellants
                             Versus
Duryodhan Manjhi, s/o Sri Radha Govind Manjhi, r/o 303,
Takshashila Apartment, South Office Para, Doranda, PO & PS-
Doranda, District-Ranchi.                     ... Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
         HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA

For the Appellant(s)      : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate
                            [in LPA No. 605 of 2019]

                            Mr. K. K. Singh, Advocate
                            Mr. Sushavan Bhowmik, Advocate
                             [in LPA No. 276 of 2016]

For the Respondent(s)     : Mr. K. K. Singh, Advocate
                            Mr. Sushavan Bhowmik, Advocate
                            [in LPA No. 605 of 2019]

                           Mr. A. K. Sahani, Advocate
                            [in LPA No. 276 of 2016]

                              --------
                             ORDER

17th January 2023

Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, J.

L.P.A No. 276 of 2016 has been filed by the UCO Bank through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director and its other Officers (hereinafter referred to as appellants).

2. L.P.A No. 605 of 2019 has been filed by the Bank employee who was terminated from service by an order dated 23 rd June 2009.

3. The aforesaid Bank employee approached the writ Court in W.P.(S) No. 5567 of 2011 challenging the order dated 23 rd June 2009.

4. The writ Court has held that the termination order dated 23rd June 2009 was issued in gross breach of the rules of natural justice, inasmuch as, no show-cause notice was issued to the writ petitioner before the order of termination from service has been passed.

with L.P.A No. 276 of 2016

5. The appellants have challenged the writ Court's order on merits whereas the Bank employee (hereinafter referred to as respondent) is aggrieved by the direction of the writ Court that he is not entitled for any benefit even after setting-aside the order of termination dated 23rd June 2009.

6. Shorn of unnecessary details, the brief facts of the case are that the respondent in the Bank's appeal has been in the service of the appellants since 1980. He was appointed on the post of Agricultural Field Officer in the Bank's Junior Management Grade Scale-I under the reserved category. However, the respondent has claimed that he was not given any benefit of reserved category in appointment. The stand put forth by the respondent is that an enquiry was conducted on the basis of an anonymous letter received by the appellants as regards his caste claim, whereupon by a letter dated 21 st April 1981 the Manager of the Bank at Gumla Branch requested the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Ranchi to look into the genuineness of the caste certificate produced by him. It is the further case of the respondent that after making an enquiry the Sub-Divisional Officer submitted a report dated 19th May 1981 to the effect that the caste certificate dated 30th July 1977 produced by the respondent is genuine. While so, the respondent was confirmed in the Bank's Junior Management Grade Scale-I on 1st July 1982. The respondent has further pleaded that he was given subsequent promotions in Middle Management Grade Scale-II and Middle Management Grade Scale-III an inference from which would be that the appellants had accepted his caste claim and upon due satisfaction of the competent authority he was granted promotions.

7. The appellants have taken a stand that inspite of several letters including the letters dated 9 th August 1999, 23rd September 2003, 10th December 2003, 16th December 2003, 18th January 2004, 23rd January 2004 and 30th December 2006, the respondent did not respond and offer any plausible explanation to the communication dated 9th March 2007 from the Deputy

with L.P.A No. 276 of 2016

Commissioner, Welfare Section, Ranchi, that he belongs to Sarabak community which does not fall under the Scheduled Tribe category.

8. The submission made on behalf of the respondent that the order of termination dated 23rd June 2009 was passed in violation of the provisions under Articles 14 and 311(2) of the Constitution of India has been sought to be repelled by the appellants with reference to the judgment in "Regional Manager, Central Bank of India vs Madhulika Guruprasad Dahir" (2008) 13 SCC 170. However, the writ Court has held that the caste certificate of the respondent cannot be presumed to be false on the basis of a report of the Halka Karmchari. The writ Court has further held that the procedure as indicated in "Madhuri Patil & Ors. v. Additional Commissioner, Scheduled Tribe Development Council" (1994) 6 SCC 241 has not been followed while taking a final decision to terminate the respondent from service.

9. The writ Court has held as under:

"9. ..................................................................................................

(i). Admittedly, the impugned order of termination dated 23.06.2009 has been passed without complying the principles of natural justice as no notice or show cause was issued prior to termination. Therefore, the impugned order of dismissal from services is a nullity against all the canons of justice, equity and fair play.

(ii). Moreover, after initial verification of the caste certificate in question, the respondents-bank on being satisfied confirmed the services of the petitioner way back in the year 1982 and consequently thereafter two promotions were given to the petitioner in the year 1994 and 2001 respectively. And after lapse of about three decades, the impugned order has been passed by the respondents-bank, which is hit by doctrine of estoppel and waiver.

(iii). Furthermore, it appears that the caste certificate has not been cancelled by any competent authority and the respondents-bank are not vested with any power to presume and to treat the said Caste Certificate to be fake or false in absence of any declaration to this effect."

10. On a bare glance at the order of termination of the respondent, what at once occurs to the mind is that whether the appellants have dispensed with the enquiry contemplated under the UCO Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976. No doubt, the employer has a right to dispense with enquiry and pass an order of termination, however, such powers can be exercised by the employer in a very limited kind of

with L.P.A No. 276 of 2016

cases such as where national interest, public safety etc. are involved.

11. In "Union of India v. M.M. Sharma" (2011) 11 SCC 293 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:

"30. If in terms of the mandate of the Constitution, the communication of the charge and holding of an enquiry could be dispensed with, in view of the interest involving security of the State, there is equally for the same reasons no necessity of communicating the reasons for arriving at the satisfaction as to why the extreme penalty of dismissal is imposed on the delinquent officer. ..."

12. There is no reference of any memorandum of charge and the departmental enquiry. The appellants have taken a stand that the respondent did not offer any explanation to the adverse report of the Deputy Commissioner. However, there is no reference of any such notice given by the appellants to the respondent. The termination letter merely states that the caste certificate of the respondent has been found false and, therefore, in view of the settled legal position his service has been terminated. This is also a matter of record that the appellate authority has dismissed the statutory appeal under UCO Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 preferred by the respondent by a cryptic order dated 17th June 2011.

13. The order of termination dated 23 rd June 2009 is reproduced below:

UCO BANK Head Office-2 Personnel Services Department 3-4, DD Block, Sector-I SALT LAKE, Kolkata-700 064 CONFIDENTIAL PSD/DISC/AKP/2009/2016 23.06.2009 Shri D. Manjhi (PFM No.33120) Senior Manager Bero Branch Sub: Your dismissal from Bank's service without notice due to submission of fake caste certificate at the time of seeking appointment in Bank's service You were offered appointment in the bank against a post reserved for Schedule Tribe on the basis of a Schedule Tribe Certificate submitted by you claiming to belong to "Kissan" Community. However, when the certificate was sent for verification of its genuineness, the Competent Authority (Deputy Commissioner, Welfare Section, Ranchi) vide his letter dated 09.03.2007 stated that "Shri Duryodhan Manjhi S/o

with L.P.A No. 276 of 2016

Radha Gobind Manjhi, Vill-Bundu, PO-Bundu, PS-Bundu Dist-Ranchi belongs to "SARABAK" community which is not coming under the category of Schedule Tribe."

Since you have been appointed in the bank in a post meant for reserved category candidates, on the basis of a caste certificate submitted by you which later on turned out to be false, your appointment can not be considered as a valid appointment in the eyes of law.

In view of the above and in view of settled position of law, you are hereby dismissed from Bank's serive without notice. Your dismissal shall be effective from the date of service of the order to you. Yours faithfully, Sd/-

Deputy General Manager Personnel Services.

14. Under the UCO Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 there is an elaborate procedure prescribed for initiating a departmental proceeding against the respondent. Under the "Procedure For Imposing Major Penalties", it is mandated that no major penalty specified under clauses (f),

(g), (h), (i) and (j) of the Regulation (4) can be passed except after an enquiry. It is further provided that the Disciplinary Authority shall frame definite and distinct charges. However, a glance at the order dated 23rd June 2009 does not reflect that the procedures prescribed under the Regulations of 1976 were followed before the order of termination dated 23rd June 2009 was passed. From the writ Court's order, we gather that there was a serious dispute as regards veracity of the report received by the appellants. While such was the factual scenario, it was more so necessary for the appellants to initiate a departmental proceeding against the respondent and provide sufficient opportunity to him to meet the allegation of misconduct of submitting a false caste certificate. In "Kamal Nayan Mishra v. State of M.P." (2010) 2 SCC 169 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has indicated that an employee confirmed in service cannot be terminated without holding a departmental enquiry.

15. In "Govt. of A.P. v. N. Ramanaiah" (2009) 7 SCC 165 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:

"14. Every person who is a member of civil service of a State or holds any civil post under a State holds office during the pleasure of the Governor. Article 311(2) qualifies the pleasure of the President or the

with L.P.A No. 276 of 2016

Governor, and the pleasure cannot be exercised if a government servant's service is to be terminated as a punishment for misconduct. In such a case, Article 311(2) mandates that a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of the charges must be given to the government servant. Any order inflicting the punishment of dismissal, removal without giving the opportunities as is required by Article 311(2) would be null and void as violative of an express constitutional requirement."

16. But all that the appellants have said in the counter-affidavit is that the respondent did not offer any reply to the communications/notices seeking his reply on his caste claim.

17. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any merit in this appeal and, accordingly, L.P.A No. 276 of 2016 is dismissed.

18. On account of the order passed in L.P.A No. 276 of 2016, no order is required to be passed in L.P.A No. 605 of 2019 which though suffers from delay of 1365 days in filing L.P.A No. 605 of 2019.

(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)

(Ratnaker Bhengra, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated: 17th January 2023 Amit/N.A.F.R