Madhya Pradesh High Court
Govind Prasad Bishnoi vs Central Madhya Pradesh Gramin Bank on 15 February, 2024
Author: Chief Justice
Bench: Ravi Malimath, Vishal Mishra
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 15 th OF FEBRUARY, 2024
WRIT APPEAL No. 25 of 2024
BETWEEN:-
GOVIND PRASAD BISHNOI S/O SHRI GOPKUL PRASAD
BISHNOI, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCCUPATION: NA
R/O KUSUMKUNJ COLONY NEAR ZILA PANCHAYAT
HARDA DISTRICT HARDA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI ANOOP NAIR - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. CENTRAL MADHYA PRADESH GRAMIN BANK
THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANGER CENTRAL
MADHYA PRADESH GRAMIN, BANK HEAD
OFFICE, 800/19, SOUTH CIVIL LINES,
CHHINDWARA (MADHYA PRADESH)
2. MADHYA PRADESH GRAMIN BANK THROUGH
ITS CHAIRMAN, 201, SILVER ARCADE, 56, DUKAN
NEW PALASIA, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. GENERAL MAGAGER/ ADMINISTRATIVE
AUTHOR I TY, CENTRAL MADHYA PRADESH
GRAMIN BANK, HEAD OFFICE 800/19, SOUTH
CIVIL LINES, CHHINDWARA (MADHYA PRADESH)
4. SHRI K P BHALERAO THE THEN BRANCH
M A N A G E R CENTRAL MADHYA PRADESH
GRAMINCENTRAL MADHYA PRADESH GRAMIN
BANK BRANCH SODALPUR PRESENTLY POSTED
AS BRANCH MANAGER CENTRAL MADHYA
PRADESH GRAMIN BANK RANGARI TEHSIL
SAUNSAR, DISTRICT CHHINDWARA (MADHYA
PRADESH)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: LORETTA RAJ
Signing time: 2/27/2024
12:46:40 PM
2
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI RAJESH MAINDIRETTA - ADVOCATE)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice
Vishal Mishra passed the following:
ORDER
Assailing the order dated 23.11.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in
dismissing the W.P. No.18596 of 2013, the writ petitioner is in appeal.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed on the post of Clerk
cum Cashier on 17.01.1985. In April 2008, in pursuance to a notification issued
by Satpura Narmada Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Chhindwara amalgamation took
place. The Regulations were framed known as "Satpura Narmada Kshetriya
Gramin Bank (Adhikari Aur Karmachari) Seva Viniyam, 2010" (hereinafter
referred to as "the Regulations, 2010") which was brought into force vide
notification dated 29.10.2010. In the year 2012 Cenral Madhya Pradesh Gramin
Bank was constituted by amalgamating Satpura Narmada Kshetriya Gramin
Bank, Vidhisha Bhopal Kshetriya Gramin Bank and Mahakoshal Kshetriya
Gramin Bank. The new regulations were framed namely "Central Madhya
Pradesh Gramin Bank (Adhikari Aur Karmchari) Seva Viniyam, 2012 which
came into force from 18.10.2012.
3. After Regulations of 2010 the petitioner was upgraded and was designated
as Office Assistant. A promotion policy was thereafter framed and notified
which requires written examination to be conducted in which the petitioner also
participated. Petitioner claims to have successfully passed the same. Thereafter,
his case was considered for promotion to the post of Officer Grade I but the
petitioner was facing a departmental enquiry. Therefore recommendation of the
DPC was kept in a sealed cover as is evident from letter dated 23.09.2010.
4. It is argued that in order to deny promotion to the petitioner he was falsely
implicated in the case and false and frivolous allegations were made against him.
In the departmental enquiry none of the witnesses was examined by the
department. The reply to the charge sheet was given by the petitioner and
thereafter the department kept silent for some time. In the departmental enquiry
the respondents have failed to consider the reply submitted by the petitioner and
based upon his cross-examination only, prepared the enquiry report finding the
charges as proved against him. Thereafter, the order of punishment was passed
by the authorities, whereby the services of the petitioner were terminated on
04.04.2013 by punishment order The appeal preferred against the same was
dismissed vide order dated 14.09.2013.
5. It is argued that in the entire departmental enquiry the procedure as
prescribed has not been followed by the authorities. The demand made by the
petitioner to supply to copy of the preliminary enquiry report was not adhered
to and he was not provided the same. The charges which were framed against
the petitioner were related to the year 2006 and the enquiry was contemplated in
the year 2010. He was not supplied the material relied upon by the Disciplinary
Authority/Enquiry Officer. He was only supplied with the list of witnesses on
25.07.2011 along with certain other documents which were insufficient for
submitting a reply/placing his defence before the authorities. But he somehow
managed to submit his reply to the chargesheet and thereafter reply to the
enquiry report was given by him. But the authorities were not satisfied with the
same and in a pre-planned manner passed the order of termination. It is argued
that the enquiry has not been done in a proper manner and principles of natural
justice and fair play have not been followed by the authorities.
6. The aforesaid aspects were not considered by the writ court and the writ
petition was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has participated in the
departmental enquiry and therefore no interference can be made in a
departmental enquiry proceedings as a very limited scope of entertaining the
same is available to the courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Therefore, the appeal has been preferred.
7. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
8. The record indicates that a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner
levying the following charges-
" vkjksi Ø0 1 v %& vkjksi gS fd Jh fo'uksbZ }kjk jkedqWoj ckbZ dks xqe jkg dj ,e,eMhlh Ø0
22@16 dh jlhn muls izkIr dj QkMdj tyk fn;k ukfeus'ku iath esa mDr ,e,eMhlh dk
ukfeus'ku 05-05-2006 dk ntZ Fkk ftl ij dkaV NkaV dj ,e,eMhlh Ø0 21@116 fd;k x;kA
blds mijkar 07-11-2007 ds i';kr~ ,d dwVjfpr ,e,eMhlh Ø- 22@16 jkf'k :- 50000@&
Jh jkeukjk;.k pkS/kjh ds i{k esa cukbZ blds fy, Jh fo'uksbZ us Jh jkeukjk;.k pkS/kjh ls /kks[ kk/kMh
iwoZd ukes ,oa tek okmpj ij gLrk{kj izkIr fd,A
vkjksi Ø0 1 c %& vkjksi gS fd Jh fo'uksbZ }kjk fnukad 07-11-2007 dks ,e,eMhlh Ø- 21@60
dk uohuhdj.k ,e,eMhlh Ø- 23@37 ds :i es mlh jlhn ftldk fizUVsM Ø0 0176389 Fkk ij
fd;k tkdj ubZ jlhn ftldk fizUVsM Ø0 0211098 Fkk dk mi;ksx dqVjfpr ,e,eMhlh &
22@16 fnukad 05-05-2006 :0 50000@& Jh jkeukjk;.k pkS/kjh ds uke cukus esa fd;k x;k rFkk
bldh dkmUVj Qkby ij mDr ,e,eMhlh & 23@37 dk fooj.k fy[kk x;k tks fd
,e,eMhlh&21@60 dh uohuhd`r gS mDr dwVjfpr ,e,eMhlh dk Hkqxrku fnukad 26-11-2007 dks
HSS& 1904 ds ek/;e ls Jh fo'uksbZ }kjk izkIr fd;k x;k bl gsrq HSS& 1904 ds [kkrsnkj
Jh jkeukjk;.k pkS/kjh ls OgkmplZ ij gLrk{kj /kks[ ks esa j[kdj izkIr fd;s x, FksA
vkjksi Ø0 1 l %&vjksi gS fd vkjksih dehZ Jh fo'uksbZ }kjk fnukad 05-05-2006 dh Ms cqd esa
nqHkkZouk iwoZd vukf/kd`r :i ls NsMNkM dj QthZ vfHkys[ k rS;kj fd;k x;kA blds vfrfjDr
fnukad 05-05-2006 ds dwVjfpr Ogkmpjks ds vuqlkj cpr [kkrk Ø0 1904 esa :0 50000@& ukes
dh ,oa :0 50000@& tek dh izfof"B Jh fo'uksbZ }kjk Ms cqd esa ugh dh xbZ gSA vkjksi Ø0 1 n
%& vkjksi gS fd Jh fo'uksbZ }kjk Jh jkeukjk;.k pkS/kjh ds cpr [kkrk Ø0 1904 esa fnukad 26-11-
2007 dks jkf'k :0 53725@& dh tek izfof"B tks fd QthZ ,e,eMhlh & 22@16 dh ifjiDork
jkf'k dh Fkh dh xbZ gS tcfd Jh jkeukjk;.k pkS/kjh dk dFku gS fd ,e,eMhlh & 22@16 mudh
ugha Fkh fnukad 26-11-2007 dks gh Jh fo'uksbZ }kjk HSS& 1904 ls :0 53700@& dk vkgj.k dj
jkf'k gM i yh rFkk [kkrsnkj dh iklcqd esa :0 25@& dh tek dh izfof"B ystj rFkk iklcqd
dk cSyasl leku jgus esa mn~ns'; ls dh xbZA"
9. The petitioner duly replied to the chargesheet. A decision was taken by the
authorities to initiate departmental enquiry against him. The petitioner was
supplied with the charge sheet along with certain documents which were being
relied upon by the authorities. Petitioner participated in the departmental
enquiry. Based upon the material available on record the Inquiry Officer
proceeded in the matter, and after completing the departmental enquiry
submitted the enquiry report before the Disciplinary Authority. A copy of the
enquiry report was supplied to the petitioner asking him to submit the reply to
the same. The petitioner replied to the enquiry report. Finding reply of the
petitioner to be unsatisfactory the order of termination of the services of the
petitioner was passed on 04.04.2013. The appeal preferred against the same has
been dismissed on 14.09.2013.
10. It is not the case of the petitioner that he has not participated in the
departmental enquiry. Rather, it is his case that the enquiry is based upon no
evidence. The Inquiry Officer has chosen not to examine any witness.
Therefore, the petitioner was not having any opportunity to cross-examine
anyone on the allegations levied against him. The fact remains that there is
nothing on record to show that petitioner has moved any application before the
authorities asking for examination of any witness in defence. The petitioner
could have filed an application before the Inquiry Officer asking him to call for
certain witnesses to be examined as his defence witnesses. But nothing was
done by the petitioner. On the contrary, he has chosen to file response to the
charge sheet, and the enquiry report and based upon the same and finding the
reply submitted by the petitioner to be unsatisfactory, the authorities have
passed the impugned order based upon the inquiry report submitted by the
authorities. The charges levied against the petitioner were found to be proved.
Therefore, the authorities have rightly held that the petitioner is not fit for
continuing the service in the respondent - Bank. Petitioner being one of the
Bank Officials, is required to have the highest standards as far as honesty and
integrity is concerned, as they deal with public money at large. Even a small
element of misappropriation or dishonesty does not entitle such officials to
continue on the post in question.
11. The aforesaid aspect could not be disputed by the counsel for the
petitioner. The only ground raised by the appellant that he has not been supplied
with certain documents as asked for by him, does not make out the case for
interference in a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Petitioner has to show that what prejudice is caused to him due to non supply
of such documents. Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that which documents
he was requiring to enable him to establish his defence. In absence of any such
pleadings placed before this court it cannot be said that any prejudice is caused
to the petitioner due to non-supply of such documents. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the cases of State of U.P. Vs. Shatrughan Lal and another reported
in (1998) 6 SCC 651 and Union of India and others vs. Prakash Kumar
Tandon reported in (2009) 2 SCC 541 had occasioned to deal with such a
situation wherein it is categorically held that until and unless an employee
specifically points out the documents which were required by him and on non-
supply of documents what prejudice has been caused to him, no relief could be
granted and the enquiry cannot be said to be vitiated. The Hon'ble Supreme
Court further in the case of U.P. State Textile Corporation. Ltd. vs. P.C.
Chaturvedi and others reported in (2005) 8 SCC 211 and State Bank of India
and others vs. Bidyut Kumar Mitra and others reported in (2011) 2 SCC 316,
has followed the same principle and has held that mere non-supply of
documents in absence of any assertion with respect to prejudice will not vitiate
the departmental enquiry. Therefore, the aforesaid argument is of no help to the
appellant. The aforesaid aspect was duly considered by the learned writ court.
12. The law with respect to interference as far as the cases of departmental
enquiry is concerned is settled in several cases especially in the case o f Union
of India vs. P. Gunasekaran, (2015) 2 SCC 610 wherein certain guidelines have
been laid down with respect to the interference in cases of departmental enquiry
which are as under:-
"12. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note
that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the
disciplinary proceedings, reappreciating even the evidence before the
enquiry officer. The finding on Charge I was accepted by the
disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court
i s not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High
Court, in exercise of its powers under Articles 226/227 of the
Constitution of India, shall not venture into reappreciation of the
evidence. The High Court can only see whether: (a) the enquiry is
held by a competent authority; (b) the enquiry is held according to the
procedure prescribed in that behalf; (c) there is violation of the
principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings; (d) the
authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion
by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the
case; (e) the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by
irrelevant or extraneous considerations; (f) the conclusion, on the
very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no
reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion; (g) the
disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible
and material evidence; (h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously
admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding; (i) the
finding of fact is based on no evidence. 13. Under Articles 226/227 of
the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not: (i) reappreciate the
evidence; (ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the
same has been conducted in accordance with law; (iii) go into the
adequacy of the evidence; (iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;
(v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be
based. (vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be;
(vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its
conscience."
13. In B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749 : 1996 SCC
(L&S) 80], again a three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held
that power of judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the
manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to
ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the
conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eyes of the
court. The court/tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as an
appellate authority to re-appreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own
independent findings on the evidence. It was held as under :
"12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of
the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is
meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to
ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily
correct in the eye of the court. When an inquiry is conducted on
charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is
concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent
officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether
the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority
entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and
authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding
must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of the
Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply
to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence
and conclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary authority
is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge.
Th e Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as
appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence and to arrive at its
own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may
interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the
delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural
justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of
inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary
authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such
as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal
may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief
so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case. 13. The
disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is
presented, the appellate authority has coextensive power to
reappreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. In a
disciplinary inquiry, the strict proof of legal evidence and findings on
that evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of
evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the
Court/Tribunal. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel, (1964) 4 SCR 718 : AIR
1964 SC 364, this Court held at p. 728 that if the conclusion, upon
consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority, is
perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of the record or
based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued."
14. The aforesaid was followed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court recently in the
case of Union of India vs. Dalbir Singh reported in (2021) 11 SCC 321. The
relevant extract reads as under:-
"24.........held that the degree of proof which is necessary to order a
conviction is different from the degree of proof necessary to record
the commission of delinquency. In criminal law, burden of proof is on
the prosecution and unless the prosecution is able to prove the guilt of
the accused beyond reasonable doubt, he cannot be convicted by a
court of law. In a departmental enquiry, on the other hand, penalty
can be imposed on the delinquent officer on a finding recorded on the
basis of preponderance of probability. It was held as under:
11. As far as acquittal of the appellant by a criminal court is
concerned, in our opinion, the said order does not preclude the
Corporation from taking an action if it is otherwise permissible. In our
judgment, the law is fairly well settled. Acquittal by a criminal court
would not debar an employer from exercising power in accordance
with the Rules and Regulations in force. The two proceedings, criminal
a n d departmental, are entirely different. They operate in different
fields and have different objectives. Whereas the object of criminal
trial is to inflict appropriate punishment on the offender, the purpose
of enquiry proceedings is to deal with the delinquent departmentally
and to impose penalty in accordance with the service rules. In a
criminal trial, incriminating statement made by the accused in certain
circumstances or before certain officers is totally inadmissible in
evidence. Such strict rules of evidence and procedure would not apply
to departmental proceedings. The degree of proof which is necessary
to order a conviction is different from the degree of proof necessary to
record the commission of delinquency. The rule relating to
appreciation of evidence in the two proceedings is also not similar. In
criminal law, burden of proof is on the prosecution and unless the
prosecution is able to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt, he cannot be convicted by a court of law. In a
departmental enquiry, on the other hand, penalty can be imposed on
the delinquent officer on a finding recorded on the basis of
preponderance of probability. Acquittal of the appellant by a Judicial
Magistrate, therefore, does not ipso facto absolve him from the
liability under the disciplinary jurisdiction of the Corporation. We
are, therefore, unable to uphold the contention of the appellant that
since he was acquitted by a criminal court, the impugned order
dismissing him from service deserves to be quashed and set aside."
15. A similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases
o f High Court of Bombay vs. Shashikant S. Patil (2000) 1 SCC 416; State
Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur vs. Nemi Chand Nalwaya (2011) 4 SCC 584;
State Bank of India and others vs. Ramesh Dinkar Punde (2006) 7 SCC 212;
Om Kumar and others vs. Union of India (2001) 2 SCC 386; Bank of India
vs. Degala Suryanarayana (1999) 5 SCC 762; M.V. Bijlani vs. Union of
India (2006) 5 SCC 88; Mazdoor Sangh vs. Usha Breco Ltd. (2008) 5 SCC
554; SBI vs. Narendra Kumar Pandey (2013) 2 SCC 740; SBI vs. R.
Periyasamy (2015) 3 SCC 101; Manoj H. Mishra vs. Union of India (2013) 6
SCC 313; and Delhi Transport Corporation vs. Shyamlal (2004) 8 SCC 88.
16. Under these circumstances, the writ court has rightly held that there is a
very less scope of interference in the cases of departmental enquiry, therefore,
denied to interfere in a well-reasoned order passed by the authorities. The writ
court has gone to the extent that a Bank Official is required to have the highest
standards of honesty and integrity. Even an element of dishonesty disentitles
him to continue on the post in question.
17. Under these circumstances no illegality is committed by the writ court. The
order passed by the writ court is just and proper.
18. The writ appeal sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to
costs.
(RAVI MALIMATH) (VISHAL MISHRA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
LR
