Navleshwar Prasad Singh vs Chief Executive Officer Indore ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 14991 MP

                                             -1-


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT
                                      INDORE
                                      BEFORE
                 HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
                    ON THE 12th OF SEPTEMBER, 2023


                      WRIT PETITION No. 5979 of 2011

BETWEEN:-
NAVLESHWAR PRASAD SINGH S/O EKNATH SINGH, AGED ABOUT 59
YEARS, 14,DEVI AHILYA COLONY,HAROD
                                                                    .....PETITIONER
(BY SHRI GIRISH PATWARDHAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE ASSISTED BY MS.
RACHANA ZAMINDAR)

AND
     CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER INDORE PREMIER CO-OP.BANK LTD.
1.
     AND ANR. 24,MAHARANI ROAD,INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
     CHAIRMAN   STAFF   SUB   COMMITTEE    INDORE                             PREMIER
2.
     COOPERATIVE BANK LTD. INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                                 .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ASHUTOSH NIMGAONKAR, ADVOCATE)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          This petition coming on for final hearing this day, the court passed
the following:
                                      ORDER

01. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 16.09.2010 (Annexure-P/11), whereby he had been terminated from service. This

petition is also against the order dated 22.10.2010 (Annexure-P/17), whereby the review petition filed by the petitioner had been dismissed.

02. Facts of the case in short are as under:-

2.1. In the year 2005, the petitioner was posted as Assistant Manager, at Indore Premier Co-operative Bank Limited. An F.I.R. against him and his son Nitin Singh was registered at Crime No.94/2005 for the offence punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 & 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and he was arrested. Vide order dated 12.05.2005, the petitioner was placed under suspension due to arrest. Thereafter, a show- cause notice in the form of charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 24.06.2005 upon his alleged association in the business of trading of grains and vegetables with his son and cheated the amount of Rs.20,00,000/- of the farmers. The charge-sheet contained the allegation that as per service conditions, he was not supposed to engage himself into the business directly or indirectly, therefore, he violated the provisions of Rule 56(1)(viii)(xvi) of the Bank Karmchari Seva (Niyojan Nibandhan & Unki Karya Sthiti) Niyam. Thereafter, the petitioner was called upon to submit a reply.

2.2. The petitioner submitted a reply (Annexure-P/3) denying each and every charge by submitting that he had no relation with his son, he had disowned him from his properties and he has published the same in a local newspaper. He is not residing with his son and he has been debarred from the properties by giving a share in the properties on 05.03.2003, therefore, he cannot be held responsible for any crime committed by his son. It was further replied by him that provisions of Rules 54 or 56 of the Niyam would not apply in his case. The charges

levelled against him are per se illegal and not sustainable and an inquiry be drawn.

2.3. The above reply was not found satisfactory and Shri Khare was appointed as an Inquiry Officer to conduct Departmental Enquiry. The petitioner also submitted a representation for revocation of suspension, but the same was not considered. The prayer for a change of Inquiry Officer was also not considered by the respondents, however, the petitioner participated in the enquiry. Upon completion of the Departmental Enquiry, an enquiry report was submitted by the Inquiry Officer. Vide letter dated 30.01.2010, the copy of the enquiry report was supplied to the petitioner with an opportunity to appear before the Staff Sub Committee with his defence. The petitioner submitted an objection in writing, and thereafter, vide order dated 16.09.2010, on a recommendation of the Staff Sub Committee, the Chief Executive Officer passed the order of termination. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a review petition on 29.09.2010 which was dismissed vide order dated 22.10.2010 relying on Rule 56 of the Niyam. Hence, the present writ petition is before this Court.

03. The petitioner was made accused in Crime No.94/2005 along with his son. He faced the trial before Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore. As the prosecution failed to prove the charges, the petitioner was acquitted. The petitioner has brought on record the judgment dated 21.09.2020 by way of an amendment.

04. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment delivered in the case of Glaxo Laboratories (I) Limited v/s Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Meerut & Others

reported in (1984) 1 SCC 1.

05. The respondent / Bank has not filed any reply to controvert the facts and grounds pleaded in this writ petition.

06. The charges against the petitioner are carved out under Rule 56(1)(viii)(xvi) of the Niyam, which is reproduced below:-

"56- xEHkhj nqjkpj.k o lk/kkj.k nqjkpj.k-& ¼,d½ ^^xEHkhj nqjkpj.k^^ esa fdlh deZpkjh }kjk fd;s x;s fuEufyf[kr dk;Z ;k pwd esa ls dksbZ ,d ;k vf/kd dk;Z ;k pwd lfEefyr gksaxs%& ¼i½ pksjh ds fy;s mdlkuk ;k ekSu Lohd`fr nsuk ;k iz;kl djuk ;k pksjh djuk] cSd a laLFkk esa vFkok mlds xzkgdksa ds O;kikj lEifRr vFkok dk;Zdyki ds laca/k esa /kks[kk/kM+h djuk ;k csbZekuh djukA ¼ii½ lkoZtfud LFkku vFkok cSad dh lhek esa e?kiku dh fLFkfr esa gksuk ;k minzo djuk ;k mPNªa[ky gksuk ;k vf'k"V O;ogkj djuk vFkok bl izdkj dk dksbZ vkpj.k cSd a ds ifjlj ds ckgj lkoZtfud Lfkkuksa ij djuk tks fd cSad dh izfr"Bk ij ykaNunk;h gks vFkok dksbZ ,slk dk;Z djuk tks vuq'kklu dks Hkax djus okyk gksA ¼xvi½ fcuk iwokZuqefr ds fdlh vU; /kU/ks vFkok O;olk; esa Hkkx ysuk ;k /kU/kk ;k O;olk; djukA"

07. As per the above charges, he was said to have been associated with the business of his son and entered into transactions with various farmers for sale and purchase of grains and potatoes and misappropriated the amount of Rs.20,00,000/-. This news of cheating was widely published in a daily newspaper namely 'Prabhat Kiran' dated 24.04.2022. The F.I.R. was also registered against him as well as his son at the instance of farmers. The respondent / Bank felt offended because the F.I.R. was registered against the petitioner at the instance of farmers and this news was published in the local newspaper. However, the burden was on the Bank to establish that the present petitioner was involved in the business of his son, or that he was indirectly doing the business in the name of his son. Placing the employee under suspension on the basis of registration of F.I.R. and arrest is justified by the employer, but so far as the termination is concerned, charges are liable

to be proved against the delinquent.

08. So far as Rule 56(1)(viii) is concerned, the same relates to indecent behaviour of bank employees in public which may cause damage to the reputation of the Bank. Merely on the basis of the news published in a daily newspaper, the charges cannot be brought under the purview of sub-rule (viii) of Rule 56(1) of the Niyam. The cheating done with the farmers was allegedly done by his son, therefore, the petitioner cannot be charged under sub-rule (xvi) which relates to payment on a false bill or claim to make a payment. On the basis of the said allegation, the charges under 56(1)(viii) and (xvi) are not made out against the petitioner. The allegations in the charge-sheet are very vague in nature.

09. So far as the enquiry report is concerned, the Inquiry Officer did not discuss any evidence in the enquiry report. Without considering defence or cross-examination he jumped to the conclusion that on the basis of the statements of farmers, paper news available on the record and registration of F.I.R., the charges are found proved. Unfortunately, the disciplinary authority also did not consider the inconclusive report given by the Inquiry Officer and straight away passed the order of dismissal. None of the charges is found proved whether this petitioner was associated in the business with his son, how he cheated the farmers, what are their bills and what are the transactions ? Nothing has been discussed and only on the basis of registration of F.I.R., arrest and publication of the news, the charges have been found proved against the petitioner and he has been terminated from service. The review petition was also dismissed by a non-speaking order.

10. So far as the registration of a criminal case is concerned, the

petitioner has been acquitted from all the charges by the concerned Court and the same has not been challenged, either by the Bank or aggrieved farmers. The manner in which the petitioner was terminated from service is a wholly unjustified arbitrary action of the respondents. The impugned orders dated 16.09.2010 (Annexure-P/11) & 22.10.2010 (Annexure-P/17) are hereby quashed. The petitioner is treated to be in service as he has never been terminated from service and he shall be entitled to get all consequential benefits along with back-wages.

11. Writ Petition stands allowed with the cost of Rs. 25,000/- payable to the petitioner.

(VIVEK RUSIA) JUDGE Ravi Digitally signed by RAVI PRAKASH Date: 2023.09.14 17:16:47 +05'30'