Madhya Pradesh High Court
Niranjan Singh Kaurav vs Madhya Pradesh Gramin Bank on 25 April, 2025
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi
REPORTABLE
1 WP No-20359-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
ON THE 25th OF APRIL, 2025
Writ Petition No.20359 of 2015
NIRANJAN SINGH KAURAV
Vs.
MADHYA PRADESH GRAMIN BANK AND ANOTHER
...........................................................................................................................
Appearance
Shri Akash Choudhary - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Rajesh Maindiretta - Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
...........................................................................................................................
Reserved on : 11.11.2024
Pronounced on : 25.04.2025
ORDER
Since pleadings are complete and learned counsel for the parties are
ready to argue the matter, therefore, it is finally heard.
2. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
the assail is to the orders dated 17.03.2015 (Annexure-P/1) and 26.06.2014
(Annexure-P/12). In pursuance of order passed by the Disciplinary
Authority on 26.06.2014 (Annexure-P/12), a punishment of compulsory
retirement from service was inflicted upon the petitioner whereas vide
order dated 17.03.2015 (Annexure-P/1), the Appellate Authority, affirming
the order of Disciplinary Authority, has dismissed the appeal preferred by
the petitioner.
2 WP No-20359-2015
3. As per the facts of the case, at the relevant point of time, the
petitioner being a Field Officer in the respondent/Bank was posted at
Bareli, District Raisen. While performing the duties, a complaint was
made on 15.09.2010 against the petitioner so also against one D.S. Patel,
Branch Manager by one of the beneficiaries namely Hari Singh to Special
Police Establishment (Lokayukta), Bhopal alleging therein that these
people, in lieu of renewal of Kisan Credit Card (KCC) of the
complainant's father namely Shri Babulal Bais, are demanding illegal
gratification.
(3.1) According to the petitioner, on receiving such complaint, though the
Lokayukta conducted a raid on 20.09.2010 at Branch Patandeo, District
Raisen, but not a single document/file of the complainant or of his father
was found in his possession. Subsequently, a seizure memo was prepared
which is also part of the petition as Annexure-P/3.
(3.2) After completing the investigation, challan was filed by the
Lokayukta before the trial Court on 30.12.2011, resultantly, the
petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 07.08.2013. On
27.08.2013, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner asking his
explanation in regard to alleged irregularity. Reply to the same was
submitted by the petitioner on 07.09.2013 wherein he has denied all the
allegations levelled against him.
(3.3) According to the petitioner, the authority in a mechanical manner
recorded its dissatisfaction with the reply to the show-cause notice and
thereafter issued charge-sheet on 07.10.2013 against the petitioner
levelling therein as many as three charges. However, reply to the charge-
sheet was also filed explaining therein that the charges levelled against
3 WP No-20359-2015
the petitioner are incorrect, but despite that the authority proceeding
further with the departmental enquiry has appointed Enquiry Officer and
Presenting Officer.
(3.4) The enquiry commenced on 06.01.2014. Though, the petitioner
after participating in the enquiry had made a demand for supply of
legible copies of the documents so as to defend himself, but those were
not supplied to him. The statements of the witnesses of the management
were submitted on 17.01.2014. However, ignoring the fact that demand
of supply of legible documents as made by the petitioner was not
fulfilled, he was also asked to submit the statement of his witnesses.
(3.5) As per the petitioner, from the record of Enquiry Officer, it can be
ascertained that neither copies of legible documents were supplied to
him nor witnesses were examined before the Enquiry Officer. Enquiry
was concluded on 22.02.2014. However, the petitioner was asked to
submit the statement of his defence, which, he submitted on 10.03.2014
and thereafter the Enquiry Officer solely relying upon the statements
and documents produced by the management held charge Nos.1 and 3
found proved whereas charge No.2 was found partially proved against
the petitioner. The report of the Enquiry Officer dated 25.04.2014 is
available on record as Annexure-P/10. The said report was given to the
petitioner so as to submit his defence before the Disciplinary Authority.
(3.6) The Disciplinary Authority after approving the finding so given by
the Enquiry Officer held the petitioner guilty and as such, vide order
dated 26.06.2014 (Annexure-P/12) passed the order of his compulsory
retirement from service.
(3.7) Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of Disciplinary
4 WP No-20359-2015
Authority, though the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate
Authority as provided under Regulation 49 of the Central Madhya
Pradesh Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations
2010, but, the Appellate Authority, in a very mechanical manner had
rejected the appeal vide order dated 17.03.2015 (Annexure-P/1); hence,
this petition.
4. The respondents have filed return giving para-wise reply to the
facts mentioned in the petition and supported the impugned orders
passed by the authorities. In the return, they have also taken a stand that
since the petitioner was caught red-handed by the Lokayukta police that
too with an amount of Rs.5000/- as bribe, therefore, criminal case was
also lodged against him. According to the respondents, since the conduct
of the petitioner tarnished the image of the bank, therefore, decision of
his compulsory retirement from service was taken which, according to
them, was just and proper. According to the respondents, enquiry was
conducted as per the procedure prescribed and legible copies of
documents asked for by the petitioner since were in possession of the
Lokayukta police, therefore, the same could not be supplied to him.
Although, it could be made available to the petitioner in a criminal trial
and as such, according to the respondents, unavailability of legible
documents cannot be made a ground to hold the enquiry in violation of
principles of natural justice and only on that ground, no interference in
the impugned orders is warranted. According to the respondents, proper
opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner and as such,
nothing wrong is committed by the authority while passing the
impugned orders. According to them, the petition is without any
5 WP No-20359-2015
substance and liable to be dismissed.
5. Rejoinder has also been filed by the petitioner saying that from the
return submitted by the respondents, it is clear that they have not
supplied legible copies of the documents to him and as such the enquiry
conducted and orders passed can be said to be in violation of principles
of natural justice. It is also submitted by the petitioner that basically it is
a case of no evidence because in the enquiry, nobody has stated anything
against the petitioner and even the basic charge of taking bribe could not
be found proved. Complainant namely Hari Singh was not produced in
the enquiry and as such, in absence of material witness Hari Singh, it is
difficult to prove that the petitioner had ever made any demand or
received any bribe. According to the petitioner, the examination of main
witness namely Hari Singh is fatal and that is the sole basis for setting
aside the impugned orders.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned
orders mainly on the ground that those were passed without application
of mind that too in violation of principles of natural justice. He has tried
to establish that the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority
without appreciating the material produced during the course of enquiry
in a proper manner had proceeded in the matter very casually. He has
submitted that the authorities further failed to appreciate as to whether
sufficient material to substantiate the charges levelled against the
petitioner were produced by the prosecution or not. Had it been done,
then the situation would have been different for the reason that the
complaint contains false and frivolous allegations. Even otherwise, on
the basis of statement of prosecution witnesses, the authorities failed to
6 WP No-20359-2015
prove the charges levelled against the petitioner. He has further
submitted that the trial Court, on the basis of witnesses of prosecution,
had opined that the charges levelled against the petitioner have not been
found proved and as such, acquitted him on that count and hence, in this
petition, it has been claimed that the opinion given by the Enquiry
Officer; finding given by the Disciplinary Authority and also of the
Appellate Authority are not sustainable on the basis of material available
and finding given by the competent Court conducted the trial in a
criminal case registered against the petitioner. Learned counsel for the
petitioner, in support of his submissions, has placed reliance upon the
case reported in (2006) 5 SCC 446 [G.M. Tank Vs. State of Gujarat
and others], (2024) 1 SCC 175 [Ram Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and
others] and also upon an order passed by this Court in Writ Petition
No.10400/2018 [R.K. Mishra Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and
others].
7. I have heard the arguments advanced and perused the record.
8. In the charge-sheet issued to the petitioner, three charges were
levelled against him. The first charge relates to the fact that a bribe of
Rs.5000/- was demanded by the petitioner from one of the beneficiaries
namely Hari Singh. In the euquiry, after considering the contents of
complaint made by Hari Singh, it has been opined by the Enquiry
Officer that since the petitioner was caught red-handed by the
Lokayukta police in a trap made by them in which Rs.5000/- was
recovered from his possession, therefore, charge No.1 is found proved.
However, with regard to charge No.2, the Enquiry Officer, overlooking
the material aspect of the case that complainant Hari Singh in criminal
7 WP No-20359-2015
trial did not support the prosecution case and very categorically stated
that delinquent never demanded any money but that was kept in his
pocket just to implicate him whereas the said amount was to be paid to
one D.S. Patel, Branch Manager; only on the basis of contents of
complaint and also of FIR, had held that charge No.2 is found proved
against the petitioner. As regards charge No.3 which was in respect of
tarnishing the image of the bank, it has been observed by the Enquiry
Officer that mere denial of said charge on the part of the petitioner is not
enough to hold him not guilty. However, no reasoning was given by the
Enquiry Officer as to how the petitioner, acting against the norms of the
bank, has tarnished its image. The Enquiry Officer has opined that a
criminal case is pending against the petitioner and it is enough to tarnish
the image of the bank.
9. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I
find substance in the submissions so advanced by learned counsel for
the petitioner that the Enquiry Officer without there being any evidence,
found the charges levelled against the petitioner proved. It is also true
that the Enquiry Officer has not considered the statement of any of the
witnesses. Although, it appears that statement of prosecution witnesses
were not recorded and even the star witness namely Hari Singh, on
whose version, the sole case of the authorities was founded, has also not
been brought before the Enquiry Officer to support the contents of his
complaint. Under such circumstances, his statement which got recorded
during trial in a case of trap in which challan was filed by the Lokayukta
had to be given weightage because he has very categorically stated
before the Court that demand was not made by the petitioner and it is
8 WP No-20359-2015
the Lokayukta team which persuaded him to keep the amount in the
pocket of the petitioner whereas the demand had been made by the
Branch Manager. In the aforesaid backdrop, I have no hesitation to say
that the Enquiry Officer acted arbitrarily rather maliciously for holding
the aforesaid charges proved. If the complainant, who is the star witness
stated before the Court that there was no demand of bribe from the
petitioner and amount was kept in his pocket that too on the persuasion
of Lokayukta team, then there would have no hesitation in saying that it
is a clear cut case of implicating an innocent person falsely. It is a
general perception that when a trap is arranged by the Lokayukta team
or any other investigating agency and somehow, if they realize that the
said trap would not be successful then that goes against their image and
in any case, they are not ready to face such a situation and somehow try
to make endeavour to get the trap successfully done, but this practice is
highly deprecated and only to save the image of a particular
organization, service career of an innocent employee cannot be
subjected to put to an end that too in such a way. Enquiry Officer, at the
same time, had to see that the delinquent was acquitted by the competent
Court of law where challan was filed by the Lokayukta. It is a settled
principle of law that in a matter of departmental enquiry, strict rule of
evidence is not applicable however, at the same time, it has to be seen
that a person cannot be punished that too when there is no evidence
against him. In the present case, the witnesses of the departmental
enquiry were the same that of criminal case and if those witnesses were
not produced during the course of enquiry, but examined by the Court in
the criminal case, in which, the Court had acquitted the delinquent, then
9 WP No-20359-2015
it would be highly inappropriate on the part of the Enquiry Officer to
hold the charges levelled against the delinquent proved.
10. However, the order of Disciplinary Authority is nothing but a
mere reproduction of incident and report of Enquiry Officer wherein no
application of mind so as to approve the opinion of Enquiry Officer
reflects. However, it is not expected from the Disciplinary Authority that
the order of punishment that too of compulsory retirement is passed
without assigning any reason. There is a procedure prescribed for
conducting a departmental enquiry. It is a quasi judicial proceeding
wherein principles of natural justice had to be followed which, in other
words, are the minimum requirement and as such, it is expected from
the authority which passes the order to apply its mind before reaching to
a conclusion otherwise there was no need for placing the enquiry report
before Disciplinary Authority and to seek explanation from the
delinquent over the opinion of Enquiry Officer. However, in the present
case, the Disciplinary Authority completely failed to discharge its
obligation and duties which are expected from him.
11. The Appellate Authority, in the appeal preferred before it, without
assigning any reason had given complete weightage to the report of
Enquiry Officer. Even, the Appellate Authority did not bother to meet
out the grounds raised in the memo of appeal. Under such a
circumstance, I have no hesitation to say that the whole exercise of the
authorities was in violation of principles of natural justice. The term
audi alteram partem is not for giving false assurance to the delinquent
that he is being given an opportunity to defend himself, but it should be
construed in its true perspective. Admittedly, in this case, legible copies
10 WP No-20359-2015
of documents as demanded by the petitioner were not supplied to him
with an expectation that they must have been supplied during the course
of criminal trial and if that was the reason then the authority was under
the obligation to accept the finding given by the Court trying the case
registered against the petitioner but that aspect has also been ignored by
the authority.
12. In a case relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner i.e.
G.M. Tank (supra), the Supreme Court has considered a case in which
departmental enquiry and criminal proceedings were based upon same
set of facts, charges, evidence and witnesses. However, it has been
observed by the Supreme Court that when in the criminal trial, the
employee was honorably acquitted in trial, then the order passed by the
Disciplinary Authority in the departmental enquiry holding the
employee guilty is not sustainable in the eyes of law. In the aforesaid
case, the observation made by the Supreme Court reads as under:-
'20. It is thus seen that this is a case of no evidence. There is no
iota of evidence against the appellant to hold that the appellant is guilty of
having illegally accumulated excess income by way of gratification. The
respondent failed to prove the charges levelled against the appellant. It is
not in dispute that the appellant being a public servant used to submit his
yearly property return relating to his movable and immovable property
and the appellant has also submitted his return in the year 1975 showing
his entire movable and immovable assets. No query whatsoever was ever
raised about the movable and immovable assets of the appellant. In fact,
the respondent did not produce any evidence in support of and/or about
the alleged charges levelled against the appellant. Likewise, the criminal
proceedings were initiated against the appellant for the alleged charges
punishable under the provisions of the PC Act on the same set of facts
and evidence. It was submitted that the departmental proceedings and the
criminal case are based on identical and similar (verbatim) set of facts
and evidence. The appellant has been honourably acquitted by the
competent court on the same set of facts, evidence and witness and,
therefore, the dismissal order based on the same set of facts and evidence
11 WP No-20359-2015
on the departmental side is liable to be set aside in the interest of justice.
* * *
30. The judgments relied on by the learned counsel appearing for
the respondents are distinguishable on facts and on law. In this case, the
departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and
similar set of facts and the charge in a departmental case against the
appellant and the charge before the criminal court are one and the same. It
is true that the nature of charge in the departmental proceedings and in the
criminal case is grave. The nature of the case launched against the
appellant on the basis of evidence and material collected against him
during enquiry and investigation and as reflected in the charge-sheet,
factors mentioned are one and the same. In other words, charges,
evidence, witnesses and circumstances are one and the same. In the
present case, criminal and departmental proceedings have already noticed
or granted on the same set of facts, namely, raid conducted at the
appellant's residence, recovery of articles therefrom. The Investigating
Officer Mr V.B. Raval and other departmental witnesses were the only
witnesses examined by the enquiry officer who by relying upon their
statement came to the conclusion that the charges were established
against the appellant. The same witnesses were examined in the criminal
case and the criminal court on the examination came to the conclusion
that the prosecution has not proved the guilt alleged against the appellant
beyond any reasonable doubt and acquitted the appellant by its judicial
pronouncement with the finding that the charge has not been proved. It is
also to be noticed that the judicial pronouncement was made after a
regular trial and on hot contest. Under these circumstances, it would be
unjust and unfair and rather oppressive to allow the findings recorded in
the departmental proceedings to stand.'
13. In the case of Ram Lal (supra), the Supreme Court has observed as
under:-
'28. Expressions like "benefit of doubt" and "honourably acquitted",
used in judgments are not to be understood as magic incantations. A court of
law will not be carried away by the mere use of such terminology. In the
present case, the Appellate Judge has recorded that Ext. P-3, the original
marksheet carries the date of birth as 21-4-1972 and the same has also been
proved by the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution. The
conclusion that the acquittal in the criminal proceeding was after full
consideration of the prosecution evidence and that the prosecution miserably
failed to prove the charge can only be arrived at after a reading of the
judgment in its entirety. The Court in judicial review is obliged to examine
12 WP No-20359-2015
the substance of the judgment and not go by the form of expression used.
29. We are satisfied that the findings of the Appellate Judge in the
criminal case clearly indicate that the charge against the appellant was not
just, "not proved" -- in fact the charge even stood "disproved" by the very
prosecution evidence. As held by this Court, a fact is said to be "disproved"
when, after considering the matters before it, the court either believes that it
does not exist or considers its non-existence so probable that a prudent man
ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the
supposition that it does not exist. A fact is said to be "not proved" when it is
neither "proved" nor "disproved" (see Vijayee Singh v. State of U.P.
[Vijayee Singh v. State of U.P., (1990) 3 SCC 190 : 1990 SCC (Cri) 378] ).
30. We are additionally satisfied that in the teeth of the finding of the
Appellate Judge, the disciplinary proceedings and the orders passed thereon
cannot be allowed to stand. The charges were not just similar but identical
and the evidence, witnesses and circumstances were all the same. This is a
case where in exercise of our discretion, we quash the orders of the
disciplinary authority and the appellate authority as allowing them to stand
will be unjust, unfair and oppressive. This case is very similar to the
situation that arose in G.M. Tank [G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat, (2006) 5
SCC 446 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1121].'
[emphasis supplied]
14. In the case of R.K. Mishra (supra), this Court has observed as
under:-
'10. Thus, it is clear that in the present case also when the petitioner
has been acquitted in a criminal case, the order passed in a departmental
enquiry dismissing him from service deserves to be set aside. Accordingly, it
is set aside.
11. The petitioner is directed to be reinstated in service with all
consequential benefits including seniority, notional promotion, fitment of
salary and all other benefits. So far as the services are concerned, since the
Supreme Court awarded 50% backwages, therefore, this Court is also
directing that for the period when the petitioner remained out of service
shall also be awarded 50% backwages.'
[emphasis supplied]
15. In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law, I have no hesitation to
say that the impugned orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority on
13 WP No-20359-2015
26.06.2014 (Annexure-P/12) and Appellate Authority on 17.03.2015
(Annexure-P/1) are not sustainable in the eyes of law and as such, they are
hereby set aside.
16. From the facts and circumstances discussed in the preceding
paragraphs, it reveals that it is a clear cut case of harassment and
victimization of an innocent employee and as such, the petitioner is
entitled to be reinstated in service with 50% back-wages as has been
directed by the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Lal (supra).
Accordingly, the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in
service with 50% back-wages within a period of three months from the
date of order, failing which, the arrears of back-wages shall carry interest
@8% till its actual payment made to the petitioner.
17. With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed.
No order as to cost.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI)
JUDGE
dm
