AJMER SINGH Vs. STATE BANK OF BIKANER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner who is presently holding the post of Assistant Accountant at Branch Office of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur at Ludhiana takes exception to various orders and in particular order dated 15.12.1987 (Annexure P. 25) order dated September 12, 1988 (Annexure P. 30) vide which the Disciplinary Authority awarded him major punishment as also order dated April 26, 1989 (Annexure P. 31) vide which his statutory appeal under the Rules was dismissed. Before dealing with his contentions centered around challenge to the aforesaid two orders, it shall be useful to give a brief resume of facts culminating into the present petition.

(2.) Having been initially appointed as a clerk on August 3, 1963 on account of various promotions that the petitioner earned during a long span of his service career, he at the relevant time was posted as Branch Manager Bhatinda when a criminal case was registered against him with the main allegations relating to purchase of 27 bills accompanied by railway receipts of four firms of Bhatinda. Branch during the period of his posting as Branch Manager, at Bhatinda Branch under the instructions of his controlling authority. The aforesaid railway receipts were stated to be false and fake and for that reason, the four firms were stated to have successfully cheated the Bank in which besides others, the petitioner was also stated to have a hand. In as much as the trial launched against the petitioner was being unnecessarily delayed and the prosecution was still asking for time after obtaining 48 adjournments, the petitioner was constrained to file in this Court Criminal Misc. No. 5631 of 1984 which was rendered infructuous on account of the fact that the prosecution withdrew the case from the Court of Special Judge, Patiala on September 28, 1984, where it was pending. However, the prosecution again filed charge-sheet against the petitioner and others on January 22, 1985, on the same allegations. The petitioner was constrained to move another Criminal Misc. No. 5109 of 1985 for quashing the proceedings pending before Special Judge, Patiala. It shall be pertinent to mention at this stage that the respondent Bank had also filed a civil suit against various firms which are stated to have cheated the Bank for the recovery of the money to the extent the Bank felt that it was cheated and the said suit was also filed against one P.N. Bhatnager, the Regional Manager. Before the said Criminal Misc. came up for ultimate decision by this Court, the aforesaid civil suit had since been decreed. The case of the petitioner is that far from alleging anything against him in the civil suit which was for the recovery of the amount with regard to false/fake receipts, reference of which has been given above, he was infact cited as a witness to support the cause of the Bank and the allegations of connivance, if at all, were made against aforesaid Shri P.N. Bhatnagar, the Regional Manager of the Bank. However, when the Criminal Misc. came up for disposal, the counsel appearing for the prosecution was confronted with the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Court, reference of which has been given above and the findings recorded therein to the effect that in a civil suit between the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur and Chetan Prakash and others, the factum of conspiracy between Chetan Prakash, the borrower and P.N. Bhatnager, ex-Regional Manager of the Bank, raised in one of the issues, having been found to be non-existent, the Advocate appearing for the state wanted time to examine the Civil Court judgment to see the possibility if the charges could be dropped or modified. The matter was adjourned to September 15, 1986. On the adjourned date of hearing, this Court passed the following order :-

(3.) Admittedly Special Judge, Patiala before whom the criminal case, referred to above, was pending ultimately discharged the petitioner vide order copy of which is annexed with the present petition as annexure P9. A perusal of the aforesaid order would reflect that the petitioner was not found to have obtained any pecuniary benefit but in the opinion of Special Judge, Patiala he had only committed certain irregularities for which he could have been dealt with departmentally. In a nutshell, although allegations of conspiracy, abetment and the like charges were found to have been totally not substantiated, the Bank was still held to have suffered a financial loss which loss was attributed besides others to some irregularities committed by the petitioner as well for which he could be departmentally tried. Whereas on one hand the respondent-Bank was proceeding against the petitioner on criminal charges, on the other hand it hand simultaneously prepared a memorandum of charges in the year 1982 to initiate departmental disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner under Regulation 68 of Chapter 10 of the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (Officers) Service Regulation, 1979 (hereinafter to be referred as Regulations of 1979). The case of petitioner is that the subject matter of charges in departmental proceedings and the criminal proceedings launched against the petitioner related to the same item of purchase of 27 bills and railway receipts which as per case of the Bank were found to be fake. Vide order dated March 23, 1983 one Shri S.M. Masaldan was appointed as Inquiring Authority by the General Manager (Operations) to enquire into the articles of charges framed against the petitioner. The petitioner is stated to have been served with another charge-sheet vide letter dated April 7, 1986 regarding which his case is that the enquiry was conducted at his back and in an irregular and illegal manner without giving any opportunity of defence and without supplying the copies of the proceedings held on different dates. Vide order dated December 15, 1987, without first giving the report of Enquiry Officer to the petitioner, a major penalty was imposed by the Disciplinary Authority whereby the basic pay of the petitioner was reduced from Rs. 2,675/- to the lowest stage of Rs. 1,175/- per month in the Junior Management Grade-I. The petitioner filed an appeal against the order aforesaid before the Chief General Manager but in the meantime as per circular letter dated March 25, 1988 the petitioner was placed/fitted to Middle Management Grade Scale-II and vide order dated January 14, 1989 the petitioner was fitted in the Middle Management Grade-II with effect from August 1, 1983. The Appellate Authority i.e. the Chief General Manager was left with no choice but to refer the appeal to the Managing Director who vide his order dated August 9, 1988 remitted the matter to be decided by the Chief General Manager which was the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner, in view of changed grades of the petitioner. The new Disciplinary Authority of the Petitioner, Chief General Manager thereafter passed the order dated September 12, 1988. It may be mentioned here that the earlier order imposing penalty upon the petitioner by the earlier Disciplinary Authority vide order dated December 15, 1987 was passed with the approval of Chief General Manager. The Chief General Manager vide order dated September 12, 1988 once again imposed major penalty on the petitioner to the effect that he shall be demoted from Middle Management Grade Scale-II to Junior Management and fixed his basic pay at Rs. 1,175/- per month in the Junior Management Grade Scale-I with effect from January 1, 1988. It is this order as also the order passed by the Appellate Authority on his appeal against the said order, Annexures P30 and P31 which the petitioner basically contends are illegal and deserve to be quashed. The appeal of the petitioner was dismissed on April 26, 1989 by the Managing Director respondent.