RAM PAL CHOUHAN Vs. MARWAR GRAMIN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner on 22. 7. 1996 against the respondents with the prayer that by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the order dated 8. 08. 1995 (Annex. 1) passed by the Disciplinary Authority of Marwar Gramin Bank (for short "the Bank") by which after holding the petitioner guilty of all the seven charges framed against him, penalty of dismissal from service under the provisions of Regulation 30 (1) (f) of the Marwar Gramin Bank (Staff) Service Regulations, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as "the Regulations of 1980") was imposed upon the petitioner, though Enquiry Officer through Enquiry Report Annex. 20 dated 16. 1. 1995 found the charges no. 2,3 and 4 proved against the petitioner, but he did not find the charges no. 1,4,5 and 7 proved against the petitioner and the appellate order dated 28. 12. 1995 (Annex. 2) passed by the Chairman, Marwar Gramin Bank (respondent No. 2) by which the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed and the order Annex. 1 dated 8. 8. 1995 was upheld, be quashed and set aside, with all consequential benefits.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner as putforward by him in this writ petition is as follows :- THE petitioner after selection was appointed as Clerk-cum- Cashier with the respondent-Bank on 17/2/1984. THE further case of the petitioner is that when he was posted at Sarnaow Branch in Jalore District, a complaint (Annex. 3) dated 24. 10. 1990 was made to the collector, Jalore by some of the loanees against the staff members of the respondent Bank, Sarnaow Branch stating inter-alia that bribe was being demanded for providing them relief under the Agricultural Rural Bank Relief Regulations. According to the petitioner, in the complaint Annex. 3, there was no specific allegations against the petitioner. THE said complaint Annex. 3 was forwarded by the Collector, Jalore to the Chairman of the respondent Bank (respondent no. 2 ). THE Further case of the petitioner is that thereafter, on that complaint Annex. 3, a preliminary enquiry was got conducted through Shanti Lal Sharma, who recorded the statements of the Manager, Field Supervisor and other staff members and also recorded the statement of complaints. After conducting a preliminary enquiry, it was proposed to take disciplinary proceedings under Chapter-IV, Regulation 30 of the Regulations of 1980 against the petitioner and charges were framed against the petitioner and the same were supplied to him through Memorandum dated 6. 9. 1991 (Annex. 8) and the sum and substance of the charges levelled against the petitioner through Annex. 8 is as follows :- Charge No. 1 That the petitioner demanded Rs. 100/- from one Narsi as bribe for closing his account and he told the loanees to give money and take the deposit receipts later on and because of not giving of receipts by him, the loanees did not deposit the money in the Bank and therefore, he did not watch the interest of the Bank and thus, he violated Regulations 17 and 19 of the Regulations of 1980. Charge No. 2 That the petitioner did not give correct information to Ganesha and Mohanlal in respect of their accounts and he harassed the loaness and by not giving correct information to the loanees and harassing the loanees, he violated Circular dated 27. 7. 1981 and further, he collected Rs. 232. 65 more from Mohanlal as bribe and thus, he violated Regulations 17 and 19 of the Regulations of 1980. Charge No. 3 That the petitioner demanded Rs. 200/0 as bribe from one Karmi and further, the petitioner was given Rs. 1400/- towards loan amount by Karmi, but the petitioner did not deposit that money in the bank and kept that amount with him unauthorisedly and thus, he did not deposit the amount received from the loanees in the Bank and thus, violated the Circular dated 18. 2. 1984 and further, by demanding bribe and keeping the recovered amount towards loan with him, he violated the provisions of Regulations 17 and 19 of the Regulations of 1980. Charge No. 4 That similarly, the petitioner also demanded bribe from Teja and further, he took Rs. 1300/- from Teja, but did not deposit that money in the bank and kept that amount with him unauthorisedly and therefore, he violated the instructions contained in the circulars dated 27. 7. 1981 and 12. 2. 1984 and also violated the provisions of Regulations 17 and 19 of the Regulations of 1980. Charge No. 5 That the petitioner did not give correct information to the loanees in respect of balance and already deposited loan amount and he harassed the loanees and also gave wrong information to them and thus, he lowered down the image of the Bank. Charge No. 6 That on 25. 10. 1990, he was Cashier and cash book was not closed by him on that day and though the amount was actually received on 26. 10. 1990, but he issued the receipts in the date of 25. 10. 1990 and thus, violated the instructions contained in Circular dated 18. 2. 1984. Charge No. 7 That on the vouchers of dated 25. 10. 1990, the petitioner did not mention the description of notes. A reply to the charges levelled against him through Annex. 8 was filed by the petitioner on 1. 11. 1991 and a copy of which is marked as Annex. 9 and in that reply, he denied all the charges levelled against him. THEreafter, on 14. 1. 1992 the petitioner further submitted a reply to the charge levelled against him through Annex. 8 alongwith the affidavit of Shri Het Ram. A copy of the said reply dated 14. 1. 1992 is marked as Annex. 10 and the copy of affidavit of Het Ram is marked as Annex. 11. THE further case of the petitioner is that thereafter, one G. S. Bhati was appointed as Enquiry officer and Shantilal was appointed as Presenting Officer. THEreafter, after holding a detailed enquiry against the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer submitted the enquiry report to the Disciplinary Authority of the respondent Bank on 16. 1. 1995 and a copy of that Enquiry Report is marked as Annex. 20. THE Enquiry Officer, after considering the entire evidence and material, came to the conclusion that the charges No. 1,5,6 and 7 have not been proved against the petitioner, but he found the charge no. 2,3 and 4 proved against the petitioner. After receipt of the enquiry report Annex. 20 dated 16. 1. 1995, a show cause notice was given by the Disciplinary Authority of the respondent Bank of the petitioner on 24. 5. 1995, a copy of which is marked as Annex. 21. A reply to the said show cause notice Annex. 21 was filed by the petitioner on 8. 8. 1995 and a copy of which is marked as Annex. 22. THEreafter, the Disciplinary Authority of respondent Bank through order Annex. 1 dated 8. 8. 1995 not only found the charges no. 2,3 and 4 proved against the petitioner, which were also found proved by the Enquiry Officer through enquiry report Annex. 20 dated 16. 1. 1995, but it also found proved the charges no. 1,5,6 and 7 against the petitioner and after holding the petitioner guilty of all the charges no. 1 to 7 levelled against him, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of removal from service against the petitioner. Aggrieved from the said order dated 8. 8. 1995 (Annex. 1) passed by the Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Chairman of the respondent Bank (respondent no. 2) and a copy of that appeal is marked as Annex. 23 and the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by the respondent no. 2 Chairman of the respondent Bank through appellate order dated 28. 12. 1995 (Annex. 2 ). In this writ petition, the order Annex. 1 dated 8. 8. 1995 passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as appellate order Annex. 2 dated 28. 12. 1995 passed by the Appellate Authority have been challenged by the petitioner on various grounds and the main grounds are as follows :- (i) That the order Annex. 1 dated 8. 8. 1995 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the appellate order Annex. 2 dated 28. 12. 1995 passed by the Appellate Authority are wholly illegal as the case has been decided against the petitioner primarily on the basis of the statements of Tejaram, Karniram, Mohan, Ganesha and Narsi and the statements were given by these witnesses during the course of preliminary enquiry and they were relied upon by the Enquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority and they were not put to examination-in-chief by the Enquiry Officer and not only this, when they were called upon for the purpose of cross- examination, they declined to make any reply and thus, they did not put themselves to face cross-examination and therefore, in view of this fact, the petitioner challenges these proceedings on two grounds : (a) that the statements of the above witnesses were not recorded by the Enquiry officer while conducting the regular enquiry and since they were recorded during the course of preliminary enquiry, therefore, no reliance can be placed on them; (b) that the above witnesses were not put to cross- examination and therefore, breach of principle of natural justice has been committed by the Enquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority and thus, no reliance can be placed on the statements of above witnesses. (ii) That when the Disciplinary Authority disagreed with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer in respect of charges no. 1,5,6 and 7 and recorded of contrary findings on these charges, it was incumbent duty o the part of the Disciplinary Authority to give notice to the petitioner and since no notice was given to the petitioner in respect of these charges, therefore, from this point of view also, the whole enquiry stands vitiated. (iii) That the impugned order Annex. 1 dated 8. 8. 1995 has been passed by the Disciplinary Authority in a most mechanical manner, inasmuch as, not a word has been said by the Disciplinary Authority in regard to the defence of the petitioner as set out by him an proved by the evidence led by him and not only this, full opportunity to lead evidence was also not given to the petitioner as witness Mangla Ram Choudhary was not allowed to be produced in defence and therefore, in the present case, the enquiry has not been held against the petitioner properly and fairly. Apart from this, the evidence available on record is not sufficient to hold the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him and thus, in these against him and thus, in these circumstances, the impugned order Annex. 1 and the appellate order Annex. 2 cannot be sustained and liable to be quashed and set aside. (iv) That the punishment of removal from service imposed against the petitioner is irrational and excess, looking to the charges found proved against the petitioner. Hence this writ petition with the prayers as stated above. A reply to the writ petition was filed by the respondents and it has been submitted by them that an employee of the Bank cannot be equated with an employee of the Executive Department of the Government since the Bank holds the public property in trust on behalf of the public and furthermore, since this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not an appellate court, therefore, scope of judicial review in respect of scrutinizing the findings of the Disciplinary Authority is very limited. THE findings of fact recorded by the Disciplinary Authority are based on correct appreciation of evidence available on record and there is ample evidence on record to prove that the petitioner committed serious irregularities in closing the accounts of loanees; he violated the bank instructions and he harassed the loanees; he took the money from the loanees, but did not deposit that money in the bank and kept with him unauthorisedly; and he also accepted bribe money from the loanees for closing their accounts and in these circumstances if order of removal from service was passed against the petitioner, no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the Disciplinary Authority in doing so. It has been further submitted by the respondents that so fat as the question that witnesses were not put to cross examination is concerned, for that the petitioner himself was responsible as he threatened these witnesses and in-fact the witnesses concerned themselves submitted an application that they did not want to produce themselves for cross-examination and whatever they had already stated, that should be taken as correct and thus, it cannot be said that no opportunity of cross-examination was given by the Enquiry Officer to the petitioner. So far as considering and relying upon the statements of witnesses recorded during preliminary enquiry, in a regular enquiry is concerned, it has been submitted by the respondents that in doing so, no breach of law had taken place. So far as the submission that witness Mangla Ram Choudhary was not allowed to be produced in defence is concerned, it has been submitted by the respondents that he was not a material witness and further, petitioner wanted to delay the enquiry as is evident from the record of the enquiry and he was in habit of filing application after applications and in these circumstances, it can be said that full opportunity to face the enquiry was given to the petitioner. Hence, the writ petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed.

(3.) IN Transport Commissioner, Madras-5 vs. Thiru. A. Radha Krishna Moorthy (3), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that under Article 226 of the Constitution of INdia, the High Court has no jurisdiction to go into truth of the allegations/charges unless they are perverse.