ANJANI KUMAR TIWARI Vs. BOARD OF DIRECTORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition praying for the following reliefs:-

(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was working in the respondent Bank for more than last 34 years. He had joined the Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank as Branch manager on 22/12/1982, thereafter the petitioner was promoted to Scale II Manager w.e.f 13/12/2992 and subsequently to Senior Manager in Scale III from 13/09/2005. On 16/3/2011, the petitioner was issued a charge sheet framing as many as 7 charges against the petitioner. The Petitioner submitted his explanation on 29/8/2011 and respondent bank satisfied with the explanation dropped 5 out of 7 charges. As the charge no. 6 and 7 were not found to be proper and convincing therefore, the respondent bank again issued an amended charge sheet on 22/11/2011. The petitioner had received a show-cause notice dtd. 10/04/2015 asking him to show cause as to why a major penalty under the provisions of Sec. 39(1) (b) (ii) of the Officers and Employee Service Regulations 2010 should not be imposed against him by demoting him from Scale III to Scale II at a minimum basic salary of Rs.19,400.00 p.m. After framing amended charges on the petitioner on 22/11/2011, no notice of 15 days under the aforesaid provision of Regulation 2010 has been given to the petitioner and no any documents or list of witness has been given with the charge sheet to the petitioner. Moreover, doctrine of natural justice has not been complied with, as no fair opportunity of being heard has been afforded to the petitioner, against which the petitioner preferred a writ petition bearing WPS No.2053/2016, which was dismissed on the ground that alternative remedy of preferring an appeal is available to the petitioner, against which he filed writ appeal bearing WA No.409/2016, which was disposed of directing the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner and pass a reasoned order, thereafter the order impugned dtd. 7/4/2016 (Annexure-P/2) has been passed demoting him from Scale III to Scale II at a minimum basic salary of Rs.19,400.00 p.m, against which the appeal preferred by the petitioner has also been dismissed vide impugned order dtd. 25/11/2016 (Annexure-P/1). Hence this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent no.2 by issuing the impugned order has exceeded his jurisdiction, as respondent No.2 does not fall under the category of Board of Directors/Appellate Authority as per 2013 Regulations, whereas direction by this Court in WA No.409/2016 was given to the Appellate Authority not to the respondent no. 2. Though in specific terms it has not been provided that the charge sheet must contain imputation of charges, list of documents and list of witnesses, however the principle of natural justice is required to be followed and the proper materials or opportunity to the delinquent employee be provided to enable him to put forward his case and file proper response. The petitioner was not provided details of charges, as such he was not in a position to defend his case properly. The charge sheet was vague and did not disclose complete facts which lead to levelling of charges against the petitioner. Thus the enquiry thereupn cannot be held as proper enquiry. The petitioner had no opportunity to meet the charges for want of material documents. The action on the part of the respondent authority in not supplying the information as required by the petitioner to prove himself innocent is contrary to the provisions of RTI Act 2005, besides being in serious violation of the Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The respondent authority ought to have ensured supplying the information to the petitioner as early as possible to submit his explanation against the show-cause notice dtd. 10/04/2015 and in the absence of doing so the respondent authority has no right to take any action against the petitioner. The petitioner has not been afforded fair and just opportunity of hearing and has been treated in discriminatory manner and without seeking his explanation/reply to the show cause notice, major penalties have been imposed by demoting him to one low grade and further putting him at the minimum basic salary of Rs.19400.00. Reliance has been placed on the judgments rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of State of Uttar Pradesh and others vs Saroj Kumar Sinha, reported in (2010) 2 SCC 772 and Govt. of A.P. and others vs A. Venkata Raidu, reported in (2007) 1 SCC 338 and the order passed by this Court in the matter of Ram Prasad Khande vs Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank and others, passed in WP No.970/1993, order dtd. 12/7/2010.