Patna High Court
Bhavendra Jha vs The Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank Ando on 12 January, 2024
Author: P. B. Bajanthri
Bench: P. B. Bajanthri
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10725 of 2010
======================================================
Bhavendra Jha, S/O Late Shobha Kant Jha, R/O Vill.- Bahuarwa, P.S.-
Manigachhi, Distt.- Darbhanga.
... ... Petitioner.
Versus
1. The Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank, Kalambagh Chowk, Muzaffarpur, through its
Chairman.
2. The Chairman, Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank, Kalambagh Chowk, Muzaffarpur.
3. The General Manager-Cum-Disciplinary Authority, Uttar Bihar Gramin
Bank, Kalambagh Chowk, Muzaffarpur.
4. The Appellate Authority of the Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank, Kalambagh
Chowk, Muzaffarpur.
5. The Senior Branch Manager of the Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank, Biraul, P.S.-
Benipur, Distt.- Darbhanga
6. Shri Ram Chandra Choudhary, the Inquiry Authority-Cum-Officer,
Controlling Office, of the Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank (herein after referred to
as "the Gramin Bank"), Darbhanga.
... ... Respondents.
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Kripa Nand Jha, Advocate.
For the Bank : Mr. Prabhakar Jha, Advocate.
Mr. Amitesh Jha, Advocate.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 12-01-2024
In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed
for the following relief(s):
"(i) For issuance of an appropriate order,
direction or writ in the nature of
certiorari quashing the order dated
4.4.2009
passed by the Disciplinary
authority as well as the Appellate order
dated 12.05.2010 by which the
petitioner has been removed from
Patna High Court CWJC No.10725 of 2010 dt.12-01-2024
service of the Gramin Bank.
(ii) For further issuance of an appropriate
direction, order or writ in the nature of
mandamus commanding the
respondents to reinstate the petitioner
back in service with all consequential
benefits.
(iii) For any other relief or reliefs for which
the petitioner may be entitled to in the
facts and circumstances of the present
case."
2. On 19.10.2023, the following order was passed:
"The matter is of the year 2010. There is no
assistance from the learned counsel for the
respondents-bank for the reasons that the
relevant statutory provision or executive
order is prior to 29.12.2007, for the reasons
that charge memo was issued on
29.12.2007. On the other hand, today
learned counsel for the respondents has
brought Rules relating to 2010.
2. Before appearing in the case, it is
bounden duty of the counsel to apprise
which are the relevant statutory Rules are
applicable and such of those statutory
Rules shall be made available to this Court.
In not producing relevant regulations under
which petitioner was subjected to various
Patna High Court CWJC No.10725 of 2010 dt.12-01-2024
action, Respondents are hereby directed to
pay cost of Rs. 5,000/- in the Patna High
Court Legal Services Committee for
causing inconvenience to this Court read
with the fact that matter is pending
consideration for the last thirteen years.
3. At the request of learned counsel for the
respondents re-list this matter on
03.11.2023."
3. Today, learned counsel for the respondents fairly
submitted that none of the witnesses have been cited and
examined in support of the alleged charges levelled against the
petitioner. In other words, the alleged charges were not proved
in the manner known to the law. The alleged charges are as
under:
" vkjksi la[;k&01
Jh HkosUnz >k] fyfid&lg&[ktkaph¼fuyafcr½ 'kk[kk&fojkSy
vodk'k miHkksx ds i'pkr~ fnukad 20-10-2004 dks iqokZgu
10-00 cts [ktkaph izHkkj dh lsQ dh pkHkh ua0 1 'kk[kk izca/kd
Jh eksnkuUn >k ls izkIr fd;k ,oa izca/kd izHkkj dh nwljh vU;
pkfHk;ka vuf/kd`r :i ls vius laj{k.k esa j[kdj 20-10-2004
dh jkf= esa frtksjh dh nksuksa pkfHk;ksa ,oa LVªkax :e dh pkfHk;ksa
ds lg;ksx ls 'kk[kk frtksjh esa j[kh dqy uxn jkf'k
15]20]849¾35 ek= dh pksjh dj yh x;hA
vkjksi la[;k&02
cSad }kjk fu/kkZfjr fu;eksa ds rgr 'kk[kk pkHkh dk gLrkukUrj.k
pkHkh cgh ij fyf[kr izHkkj ds }kjk fd;k tkrk gSA Jh HkosUnz
>k }kjk [ktkaph izHkkj dh lsQ dh pkHkh la0 1 'kk[kk izca/kd
Jh eksnkuUn >k ls 20-10-04 dks iqokZgu 10-00 cts fyf[kr :i
ls izkIr fd;k x;k ysfdu izca/kd izHkkj dh lsQ pkHkh la0 2
xyr dke dks vatke nsus dh ea'kk ls Jh HkosUnz >k us fcuk
fyf[kr izHkkj ds fnukad 20-10-04 dks izkIr fd;kA
Jh >k }kjk fu;eksa ds fo:) cjrh x;h mijksDr d`R; ds
Patna High Court CWJC No.10725 of 2010 dt.12-01-2024
dkj.k cSad dks xEHkhj vkfFkZd {kfr gqbZ gS ,oa xzkgdksa ds chp
cSad dh Nfo /kqfey gqbZ gSA Jh >k dk mijksDr d`R; mRrj
fcgkj {ks=h; xzkeh.k cSad vf/kdkjh ,oa deZpkjh lsok fofu;e
2006 ds fofu;e 17] 18] ,oa 19 dk Li"V mYya?ku gSA "
4. The charge memo dated 29.12.2007 does not
contain the list of documents and list of witnesses. There are
serious charges levelled against the petitioner to the extent that
there were theft of a sum of Rs.15,20,849.35/- from the safe
locker of the Respondent-Bank.
5. Safe locker of the Bank was having a double
locking system and each key was assigned among two staffs,
namely, petitioner and Branch Manager. If there is no break
open of safe locker of the Respondent-Bank and each key was
assigned to the petitioner and Branch Manager and theft of
Rs.15,20,849.35/- has taken place in that event there should
have been common enquiry under the service regulation of Uttar
Bihar Gramin Bank called " Uttar Bihar Gramin Bank (Officers
and Employees) Service Regulations-2008 and Regulation
No.41 relates to common enquiry. It is necessary to reproduce
the Regulation No.41 which reads as under:
"41. Common Enquiry
Notwithstanding anything contained in
these Regulations, if two Officers in
different grades or an officer and an
employee are involved jointly in an
Patna High Court CWJC No.10725 of 2010 dt.12-01-2024
incident and disciplinary proceedings are
sought to be instituted against both of
them and the Chairman is of the opinion
that having regard to the facts and
circumstances of the case, the Competent
Authority in respect of both the officer
and employee should be the same, the
Chairman may direct that the Competent
Authority in respect of the Officer shall
be the Competent Authority in respect of
both the officer and employee involved
and a common enquiry shall be held into
the charges against both of them and the
delegation of power to enquire under
Regulation 40 and the procedure, with
the exception of the final order shall be in
favour of the same enquiry officer."
6. The respondents have not resorted to Regulation
No.41 in respect of more than one employee/Officer involved in
the alleged misconduct. In the present case, theft of a sum of
Rs.15,20,849.35/- from the safe locker of the Bank and the
alleged allegation is in respect of petitioner and Branch
Manager. The respondents have initiated inquiry and concluded
while holding individual inquiry instead of holding a common
inquiry.
7. Perusal of the records, it is evident that how the
Patna High Court CWJC No.10725 of 2010 dt.12-01-2024
petitioner alleged to have managed to obtain one of the safe
locker key from the Branch Manager or vice versa is not
forthcoming. Therefore, it is a case of no evidence. That apart,
none of the witnesses have been examined insofar as proving
the alleged charges. Taking note of these facts and
circumstances, it is a case of no evidence. The Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Kuldeep Singh Versus Commissioner of
Police and Others reported in (1999) 2 SCC 10 has held that
the Courts normally would not interfere in respect of
departmental inquiry unless if there are any violation of Rules
and case of no evidence. In the present case, charge memo is
not accompanied by list of statement of imputation, list of
documents and list of witnesses. That apart, the alleged charges
were not proved in the manner known to the law. Therefore, the
petitioner has made out a case so as to interfere with the
impugned order dated 04.04.2009 passed by the Disciplinary
Authority (Annexure-17) as well as the Appellate order dated
12.05.2010 (Annexure-19) and they are, accordingly, set aside.
8. The instant writ petition stands allowed.
9. The concerned respondent is hereby directed to
regulate the service of the petitioner from the date of removal
from service and extend service and monetary benefits within a
Patna High Court CWJC No.10725 of 2010 dt.12-01-2024
period of four months from the date of receipt of this Judgment.
(P. B. Bajanthri, J)
P.S./-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 16.01.2024.
Transmission Date NA
