Central Bank Of India Through Its ... vs Rama Shankar Singh
2023 Latest Caselaw 1126 Jhar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
          L.P.A. No. 151 of 2021

1. Central Bank of India through its Chairman-cum-Managing
   Director, Mumbai
2. Executive Director, Central Bank of India, Mumbai
3. General Manager, Central Bank of India, New Delhi
4. Chief Vigilance Officer, Central Bank of India, Mumbai
5. Zonal Manager, Central Bank of India, Patna
6. Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, Ranchi
   All the appellants represented through Regional Manager, Central
   Bank of India, Regional Office, Ranchi Sri Ajay Kumar Singh
                   ...   ...     ...  ...    ...    ... Appellants
                         Versus
Rama Shankar Singh                    ...      ...      ... Respondent
                         ---------
CORAM:        HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
             HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
                         ---------
For the Appellants:      Mr. Rajendra Krishna, Advocate
                         Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate
                         Mr. Rohan Kashyap, Advocate
For the Respondent:      Mrs. Ritu Kumar, Advocate
                         Mr. Samavesh Bhanj Deo, Advocate
                         Ms. Shatakshi, Advocate
                         ---------

10/Dated: 15.03.2023

      Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court

passed the following, (Per, S.K. Mishra, C.J.)

                   ORDER

1. By preferring this intra court appeal, the Central Bank of India

through its CMD and other officers have prayed to set aside the

judgment passed by the learned Single Judge on 15.12.2020 in

W.P.(S) No. 7540 of 2012. The writ application was filed by one Rama

Shankar Singh, who is a retired Government servant of the Central

Bank of India. He prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of

certiorari for quashing the impugned order contained in letter No.

ZO/DA/02-03/267 dated 27.11.2002 i.e. Annexure-16 to the writ

application, whereby a punishment of compulsory retirement from

Bank services in terms of Regulation 4 (H) of the Central Bank of India

Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 has

been passed. He has also prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari for

quashing the order passed by the appellate authority and also for

quashing the order dated 02.01.2004 containing letter no. ZO/PRS

DD/03-04/1135 passed by the appellate authority in appeal

proceedings. He has also made certain prayers for consequential

benefits.

2. The facts of the case, at this stage, are not disputed.

The petitioner was posted as a Manager, Jamshedpur Branch

of the Respondent-Bank. A memorandum of charge was issued on

19.07.1999 and delivered to him on 30.07.1999, whereby, it was

proposed to hold a departmental enquiry against him with regard to

imputation of misconduct. Thereafter, in terms of the aforesaid

charge-sheet i.e. Annexure-5 to the writ application, the departmental

enquiry has been conducted in which the petitioner filed a detailed

written brief denying all the allegations levelled against him.

Thereafter, the Inquiry Officer has submitted enquiry report dated

18.02.2022, which was delivered to the petitioner on 28.02.2002.

Pursuant to that, the petitioner filed detailed reply against the findings

of the Inquiry Officer. His reply is at Annexure-9 to the writ application.

Finally, the order of removal from service has been passed against

the petitioner by the disciplinary authority vide Annexure-16.

Being aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, the petitioner

filed an appeal to the appellate authority, which was also dismissed

on contest on 02.01.2004 i.e. Annexure-19 to the writ application.

Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a writ application to this Court and

his application was disposed of on 01.03.2012 giving liberty to the

petitioner to prefer an application for review and reviewing authority of

such review application was directed to consider the case of the

petitioner.

Pursuant to the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred a

review application, which was also dismissed. Such orders finding him

guilty compulsory retirement has been confirmed by the reviewing

authority, hence, the writ application was filed.

3. It was argued before the learned Single Judge that in gross

violation of the statutory Rules guiding service conditions as well as

the Statutory Regulations of the Bank the impugned order has been

passed. It is not disputed at this stage that while issuing the charge-

sheet, the disciplinary authority did not supply the copies of the

documents relied upon by the Management against the petitioner. No

list of witnesses was also supplied. Rule 6 especially sub rule 5 and

10 of the Central Bank of India Officer Employees (Discipline and

Appeal) Regulations, 1976, provides for supply of documents and list

of witnesses.

4. We take note of the exact word used in the said Regulation,

which is undisputedly a statutory regulation which was promulgated in

exercise of powers conferred under Section 19 of the Banking

Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, thus

the Rule has a statutory force and it is binding on the employees as

well as the Central Bank of India. The relevant Rules are quoted

below:

"6(5) The disciplinary authority shall, where it is not the inquiring authority, forward to the Inquiring Authority:

(i) a copy of the articles of charges and statements of imputations of misconduct or misbehavior;

(ii) a copy of the written statement of defence, if any, submitted by the officer employee;

(iii) a list of documents by which and list of witnesses by whom the articles of charge are proposed to be substantiated;

(iv) a copy of statements of the witnesses, if any;

(v) evidence proving the delivery of articles of charge under sub-regulation (3);

(vi) a copy of the order appointing the 'Presenting Officer' in terms of sub-regulation (6).

xxx xxx xxx

(10) (a) The Inquiring Authority shall, where the Officer employee does not admit all or any of the articles of charge, furnish to such Officer employee a list of documents by which, and a list of witnesses by whom, the articles of charge are proposed to be proved.

(b) The Inquiring Authority shall also record an order that the Officer employee may for the purpose of preparing his defence:-

(i) inspect within five days of the order or within such further time not exceeding five days as the Inquiring Authority may allow, the documents listed;

(ii) submit a list of documents and witnesses that he wants for the enquiry;

(iii) be supplied with copies of statements of witnesses, if any recorded earlier and the Inquiring Authority shall furnish such copies not later than three days before the commencement of the examination of the witnesses by the Inquiring Authority;

(iv) give a notice within ten days of the order or within such further time not exceeding ten days as the Inquiring Authority may allow for the discovery of production of the documents referred to in item (ii).

A Note has been appended thereto, which provides that the

relevancy of the documents and the examination of the witnesses

referred to in item (ii) shall be given by the Officer employee

concerned.

5. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that at the

time of issuing a charge-sheet in a departmental proceeding, the

Management is under an obligation to provide the list of documents,

copies of the documents, unless those documents were voluminous

and the list of witnesses along with their statements if recorded earlier.

The Inquiring Officer had to make an order of inspection of documents

by the delinquent employee. Admittedly, in this case, the said

procedure prescribed has not been followed.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that it is only a

procedural defect and it cannot be held to be a substantive defect in

the departmental proceeding and on the basis of such procedural

irregularity, a departmental enquiry and the consequential order,

passed thereon, cannot be quashed. He would also further submit that

even non supply of list of witnesses or list of documents and copies of

documents and also the order to the effect that the delinquent has a

right to examine the records within five days as per clause No. 10(b)(i)

of the Central Bank of India Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal)

Regulations, 1976, the entire enquiry and the punishment awarded to

the employee cannot be quashed.

7. We are not impressed by such argument. In a departmental

proceeding, at the very outset, the delinquent employee must be

made aware of the evidences including documentary evidence that

would be relied upon by the Management to prove the charge against

the employee so that he would have an effective opportunity of

showing cause. This is not a mere formality. It goes to the root of the

case and in that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the

learned Single Judge has not committed any error on record by

holding that there has been a violation of the statutory rules and

having relied upon the judgment in the case of State of Uttar

Pradesh and others Vs. Saroj Kumar Sinha reported in (2010) 2

SCC 772 and G.V. Aswathanarayana Vs. Central Bank of India and

others reported in (2004) 1 LLJ 36 and has come to a just and proper

conclusion, hence, there appears to be no justifiable reason to

interfere with the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge.

8. In that view of the matter, we find no merit in this Letters Patent

Appeal, which is accordingly dismissed with a cost of Rs. 5,000/-

(Rupees Five Thousand) to be paid to the private respondent within a

month, failing which the same shall be realized by invoking the

provisions of Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act, 1914.

9. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

10. Grant urgent certified copy of this order as per the Rules.

(S.K. Mishra, C.J.)

(Ananda Sen, J.) APK/VK