Patna High Court
The State Bank Of India Through The ... vs Ramadhar Sao on 14 December, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.1283 of 2018
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3594 of 2013
======================================================
1. The State Bank of India through the Regional Manager, Regional Office,
Muzaffarpur.
2. Disciplinary Officer-Cum-Assistant General Manager (Administration),
Administrative Office, State Bank of India, Muzaffarpur.
3. Appellate Authority-cum-Deputy General Manager (Commercial and
Operation), Administrative Office, State Bank of India, Muzaffarpur.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Ramadhar Sao S/o Shree Sao, Resident of Village and P.O.-Paharpur, P.S.-
Madanpur, District-Aurangabad.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Rakesh Kumar Singh, Advocate.
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Subodh Kumar Jha, Advocate.
Mr. Pranav Kumar Jha, Advocate.
Mr. Chandra Mohan Jha, Advocate.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI)
Date : 14-12-2022
Appellant has assailed the order of the learned
Single Judge dated 16.05.2018 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3594 of
2013. Respondent was appointed as messenger in the year 1997
in the State Bank of India which is a Class-IV post. He was
subjected to disciplinary proceedings on the following
allegations:
"During your posting at our ADB Ramnagar Branch, the
undernoted irregularities of serious nature have been
observed on your part. You acted negligently and
committed several mistakes which are likely to expose the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1283 of 2018 dt.14-12-2022
Bank to incur substantial loss. Besides several lapses, few
of them are illustrated below.
(a) you were on leave for 5 days up to
19.04.2008, but did not turn up to the Branch till the
completion of the investigation i.e., 28.04.2008. There
was no notice to the Branch in this regard.
(b) It has been alleged that you have been
executing loan documents at your residence and at Bank
Branch also."
Disciplinary proceedings was concluded in
imposition of penalty of dismissal from service on 08.01.2011
and it was affirmed by the appellate authority on 07.12.2012,
hence the respondent invoked the remedy under Article 226 of
the Constitution.
Learned Single Judge proceeded to allow the writ
petition on 16.05.2018, hence the present L.P.A. by the State
Bank of India.
Learned counsel for the appellant-State Bank of
India vehemently contended that writ petition filed by the
respondent is not maintainable as respondent has not exhausted
statutory remedy available to him. In this regard, he has cited a
decision of this Court passed in C.W.J.C. No. 7219 of 2016
dated 24.03.2022. On merits, it is submitted that it is a clear case
of committing irregularities by the respondent and he was
subjected to inquiry and there is no procedural error so as to
interfere with the order of the dismissal as well appellate
authority. The learned Single Judge has not appreciated that
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1283 of 2018 dt.14-12-2022
there is compliance to the relevant disciplinary regulation.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the
respondent resisted the aforesaid contentions and submitted that
jurisdiction issue has not been raised by the appellant before the
learned Single Judge. Therefore, in appeal he cannot raise. It is
further submitted that alleged charge is very vague and it is not
consistent of ingredients to constitute a charge. Therefore, no
interference is called for in so far as order of the learned Single
Judge dated 16.05.2018 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3594 of 2013 is
concerned.
Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the
parties and have gone through the materials on records.
Learned counsel of the appellant raised preliminary
issue that writ petition is not maintainable on the score that
respondent had statutory remedy before the appropriate
authorities. Identical issue has been settled by this Court in
C.W.J.C. No. 7219 of 2016 dated 24.03.2022. The aforesaid
decision is distinguishable in the present L.P.A. for the reasons
that the appellant-Bank have surrendered their right or
jurisdiction to Article 226 of the Constitution in C.W.J.C. No.
3594 of 2013. In L.P.A., they cannot turn around and say that
writ petition filed by the respondent is not maintainable. That
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1283 of 2018 dt.14-12-2022
apart, it is to be noted that respondent was dismissed from
service on 08.01.2011 and it was affirmed by the appellant
authority on 07.12.2012 and we are in the year 2022. It is more
than one decade. Therefore, it is not appropriate to set aside the
order of the learned Single Judge and asking the respondent to
invoke appropriate remedy before the jurisdictional forum.
Further, it is to be noted that after all the respondent is a Class-
IV employee. Therefore, the contention of the appellant-Bank
that writ is not maintainable, issue cannot be entertained at this
distance of time and it is hereby rejected.
Having regard to the alleged allegations levelled
against the respondent, like charge memo which has been
quoted supra. Reading of alleged charge is not commensurate
with the ingredients of constituting Article of charge. In other
words, article of charge must be very specific with the time, date
and other events. The ingredients are not forthcoming from the
article of charge. Therefore, matter would go to the root of the
matter that there is defect in initiation of inquiry like framing of
article of charge. The Apex Court in the case of Kumaon
Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. v. Girja Shankar Pant and Ors.
reported in (2001) 1 SCC 182 and Anant R. Kulkarni Vs. Y. P.
Education Soceity and Others reported in (2013) 6 SCC 515
Patna High Court L.P.A No.1283 of 2018 dt.14-12-2022
held that charges must be very specific in a departmental
enquiry in order to understand and counter the alleged allegation
by the concerned employee.
Learned counsel for the appellant has not pointed
out what is the error committed by the learned Single Judge
except jurisdictional issue so as to interfere with the order of the
learned Single Judge. Accordingly, L.P.A. stands dismissed.
(P. B. Bajanthri, J)
( Purnendu Singh, J)
mantreshwar/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N.A.
Uploading Date 22.12.2022
Transmission Date N.A.
