Harjeet Singh Ram Gadiya v. Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR WP No. 747 of 2002 :rk"

af Harjeet Singh ---- Petitioner

Versus

Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank -a-- Respondent CAV ORDER POST ON 12%ARCH Sd/- Manindra Mohan Shrivastava '

Judge

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHAIITISGABH, BILASPUR WP No. 747 of 2002 Harjeet Singh Ram Gadiya S/o Guru Bax Singh, aged about 42 years, R/o Railway Crossing Tumgaon Road, Mahasamund, Raipur, (C.G.) ---- Petitioner 7'5"?

in"

Versus

Chhattisgarh Rajya Gramin Bank Through [ts Chairman, 15, Recreation Road, Choubey Colony, Police Station Amapara, Raipur, Civil And Revenue District Raipur, (C.G.) ---- Respondent For Petitioner Shri T.K. Jha, Advocate For Respondent Shri B.D. Guru, Advocate S.B. Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrjvastava CAvowa $1/Io3/2017 1.

By petition under Article 226/227 Constitution lndia, petitioner has assailed legality and validity of order dated 6.4.1994 passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing penalty of dismissal from service as also order dated 20.2.1995 passed in appeal by which the petitioner's 'appeal has been dismissed and the order of penalty affirmed. While the petitioner was working as Field Supervisor in the service of the then Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank (A Regional Rural Bank), a departmental enquiry was instituted against the petitioner vide charge sheet dated 10.7.1987.

It was alleged during period remained posted as Branch Manager of Branch Korbi, Regional Rural Bank, he committed serious financial irregularity sanctioning loan under Integrated Rural Development Project, in the name of fake persons, without following'the established procedure of disbursement of loan. It was alleged most persons whose names loans sanctioned

-2disbursed, they found upon enquiry, it was revealed various fake accounts were got opened in the name of fake persons and the withdrawals made under false loan cases name non-existent persons deposited those fake accounts for his own personal benefits.

filed reply denying charges.

Enquiry Officer was appointed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Enquiry Officer, after holding an enquiry, submitted report.

Though petitione%.¢Was afforded opportunity to submit his defence statement against the enquiry report, the'

petitioner failed to do so and finally, the Disciplinary Authorityvide impugned order dated 6.4.1994, imposed penalty of dismissal from service. Aggrieved by the impugned order, preferred an appeal which too was dismissed vide order dated 20.2.1995, giving rise instant petition. The challenge to the departmental enquiry and order of penaltyvhas been assailed by the petitioner on the following grounds: A. That the petitioner was not supplied the documents which demanded him, which resulted violation principles of natural justice.

B. That rejection of petitioner's request for engaging a defence assistant seriously prejudiced him in his defence, because he was pitted against expert officer department as presenting officer.

C.'

Thatvthe was allowed lead oral documentary evidence defence.

They illegally arbitrarily rejected officer, thereby seriously prejudicing the petitioner in his defence.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that though, at the initial stage of enquiry, petitioner stated that he did not want to engage a defence assistant, later on, as the progressed, due various intervening circumstances like institution a parallel criminal case against him similar charges, an occasion arose for the petitioner to seek appointment of defence aSsistant. The petitioner was pitted'against an expert department officer of higher rank who was presenting the case of the prosecution.

ln

-3these circumstances, denial of d/efence assistant seriously prejudiced petitioner as he couid effectiveiy defend himself, he being a layman.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contented nature charges levelled against the petitioner were not only grave but also very complicated it was not within the competence of the petitioner to effectively defend himself without proper legal assistance or at least defence assistant of the department, to be provided by the department.

lt was nextgntended that petitioner was not supplied the documents as demanded by him. lt is argued that even all the documents relied upon by the prosecution were also not supplied to the petitioner and, therefore, it became impossible for the petitioner to know exactly what was the case of the prosecution and documentary evidence which charges based.

Thiscadversely affected the petitioner's right of effective defence.

Lastly, it was Contended that when the petitioner was asked to submit list of defence witnesses and documents, which submitted petitioner, officer rejected them at threshold stating some of them relevant.

lt was argued that by rejecting most material oral and documentary evidence, which the petitioner intended to rely upon rebuttal of charges, the petitioner's defence was seriously prejudiced. In this manner, it is argued, the entire enquiry was vitiated on account of unfairness, biased attitude of enquiry officer, denial of documents, opportunity to lead defence witnesses and to engage a competent legal assistant/departmental defence assistant. In support of his submissions, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court the case State of Haryana and Ann Vs.

Rattan Singh (AIR 1977 SC 1512) and order dated 4.7.2012 passed in Writ Appeal No.182 of 2011 (Bi/aspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank Vs.

Ganesh Ram Cha/ak).

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent submits petitioner's grievance against non-supply of document is vague unspecific.

has specified which documents, relied upon prosecution, supplied him.

Referring proceedings departmental enquiry, as contained the documents (filed collectively as Annexure /A-7), learned counsel for respondent submitted proceedings revealed that all the prosecution documents were duly supplied

-4to the petitioner and all through the enquiry, till the petitioner appeared, he did raise any objection, oral or writing, regarding no-supply of any particular document. MoreOver, the petitioner has failed to specify as to how he was prejudiced in his defence on account of non-supply of any particular document.

Replying to other grounds, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that, in fact, the petitioner did not cooperate during enquiry. At the beginning of the enquiry as early as on 9.3.1988, when the%pe'titioner was given an opportunity to engage a defence assistant, the petitioner stated that he would defend himself.

However, thereafter, did participate remained absent most days hearing and, therefore, the enquiry officer had no option but to proceed. On 9.9.1989, the presenting officer completed prosecution case and thereafter the case was adjourned for almost two years. The petitioner was granted time up to 315' July, to submit reply. The petitioner did not submit his defence statement. The enquiry report was finally submitted 7.9.1992.

Despite repeated opportunities, did avail opportunity submit his defence.

lt is also submitted that it was within the authority of the officer to require the petitioner to establish relevancy of oral documentary evidence which proposed be led defence.

This aspect was considered by the enquiry officer and the enquiry officer gave its ruling.

did dispute it allowed be completed and order to be passed.

Lastly, it is submitted that even in the appeal filed by the petitioner, the petitioner raised vague grounds which were found to be without any merit and therefore, the appeal was also dismissed. i have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

ln so far as petitioner's grievance of non-supply of documents is concerned, the pleadings contained in paragraph 5.10 of the petition do not indicate as to which document was not supplied to the petitioner.

lt has been vaguely stated, without any specific details, as to which document was not supplied .despite demand made regard.

All has been stated petitioner in/his pleadings, as contained in para 5.10 of the petition is that "the petitioner had demanded various documents". The only other averment made paragraph is "whenever has asked for

-5documents, same refused".

Except aforesaid bald pleadings, without any specific details' no material has been placed by the petitioner in regard.

has even placed record any single application writing, bearing acknowledgement of receipt of the same by officer, establish aforesaid plea non-supply of any document much less, documents relied upon by the prosecution so as to show was prejudiced account of ,gfn'a'n-supply documents. Plea in this regard, if l may say so, is blissfully vague and bereft any material.

On contrary, a perusal enquiry.

proceedings, cumulatively filed as Annexure A-7 petitioner, revealed petitioner was supplied documents.

In regard, minutes of proceedings dated 9.3.1988 clearly show that the documents of the prosecution were supplied to the petitioner. The minutes of proceedings dated 9.4.1988 also clearly establishes all documents relied upon by the prosecution were supplied to the petitioner and his acknowledgment was also obtained. Not only this, the petitioner was also allowed inspection of original records. When officer enquired from whether he has inspected the original records, photocopies of which have been supplied to him, the petitioner admitted that he has not only obtained photocopies, but also inspected the original records. Therefore, it is clear that the grievance that the documents were not supplied to him, has no legs to stand.

Neither in pleadings nor record proceedings (Annexure A-7), there is anything indicate after supply documents relied upon prosecution and inspection of original records, the petitioner submitted any application for supply of document other than those relied upon prosecution, to establish his defence and those documents, despite being possession of the respondent, were neither allowed to be inspected nor copy supplied so as say relevant documents withheld from petitioner.

ln so far as challenge to the departmental enquiry and the penalty order on the ground of rejection of prayer of engaging defence assistant is concerned, respondent have come out with emphatic stand replied 9.3.1988 when the petitioner was given an opportunity to defend the case with help of defence counsel, petitioner expressed he would

@ -5defend his case himself. Though the petitioner filed rejoinder, the aforesaid assertion respondent has been disputed petitioner.

However, the petitioner has sought to justify through his averment in para-6 of rejoinder that the petitioner in the changed circumstance, made a request as late as 5.8.1991 engage defence counsel.

proceedings enquiry (Annexure A-7) read along with the reply of the respondent would show that the petitioner remained absent on various dates durigég'yenquiry. He was absent from 17.3.1988 21.11.1988.

On 9.8.1989, presenting officer had completed prosecution case and thereafter for about two years, petitioner did not take any steps defend his case.

Finally, he was granted time up to 315' July, 1991 to submit reply.

lt was only at this belated stage that the petitioner came out with a request for engaging a defence counsel 5.8.1991.

officer was therefore fully justified rejecting petitioner's prayer at such a belated stage of enquiry.

During the course hearing before Court, it was enquired from whether the relevant rules applicable in the matter of departmental enquiry contained any specific provision giving any such right to engage defence assistant, but no specific provision could be brought notice of the Court.

ln any case, the petitioner was afforded this opportunity at the very threshold of the enquiry, as early as possible 9.3.1988, which petitioner expressed that he would be defending his case himself. Moreover, present is not a case where the petitioner was pitted against any legal expert presenting the case of the prosecution. Therefore, on facts also, this Court is unable to except the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that rejection petitioner's prayer for engagement of defence assistant was unjustified, illegal or had the effect of denying petitioner a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

ln this regard, it is relevant to refer to clause (1) & (2) of Regulation 30 of the Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank Staff Service Regulations, 1980, as below:- "30.

(1) Without prejudice provisions of other regulations, an officer or employee who commits a breach these regulations or who displays negligence, inefficiency or indolence, or who knowingly does anything detrimental to the interests of

-7.

Bank or conflict with its instructions or who commits a breach of discipline or is guiity of any other act misconduct, shall be liable following penalties :- (a) Reprimand;

(b) delay or stoppage of increments or promotion; (c) degradation to a lower post or gradeayonto a lower stage in his incremental scale;

(d) recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Bank by the officer or employee;

(e) Removal from service which shall not bera disqualification for future reemployment (f) dismissal.

(2) No officer or employee shall be subjected to the penalties referred to clause (b), (c), (d), (e) or (f) sub-regulation (1) except by an order in writing signed by the Chairman and no such order shall be passed without the charge being formulated in writing and given to the said officer or employee so that he shall have reasonable opportunity to answer them in writing or in person, as he prefers and in the latter case his defence shall be taken down in writing and read to him.

Provided requirements subregulation may be waived, if the facts on basis of which action is to be taken have been established in a court of law or court martial, or where the officer or employee has absconded or where it is for any other reason impracticable to communicate with him or where there is difficulty in observing them and the requirements can be waived without injustice to him. ln every casewhere all or any of the requirements of this sub-regulation are waived, '

the reasons for so doing shall be recorded in writing.

_~ "vhhwmww a W-H (3) x x x (4) x x X 8.

Regulations incorporate the principles of natural justice that no order imposing any penaity shall be passed without the charge being formulated in writing and given to the officer or employee so that he shall hgve reasonable opportunity to answer them in writing or in person, as he prefers and in the latter case his defence shall be taken down writing lead him.

Therefore, on facts, the aforesaid ground to assail legality and impropriety of proceedings consequent order penalty cannot be accepted and liable to be rejected.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also stated that the petitioner sought produce defence, certain documents witnesses which relevant but arbitrarily rejected by the enquiry officer.

On issue, upon perusal of proceedings of enquiry, filed collectively as Annexure A-7, l find during proceedings departmental enquiry, 9.4.1988, an objection with regard to relevancy of some of the proposed defence winteses was raised by the presenting officer and the petitioners sought adjournment establish relevancy.

He was granted opportunity also establish relevancy of witnesses No.

4, 5, 6, 8 &

9. On 15.10.1988, the presenting officer requested officer disallow petitioner's proposed ' witnesses No.4, 5, 6 & 8 as the petitioner failed to establish the relevancy in the context of charges levelled against him. The enquiry officer, on the basis submissions made presenting officer petitioner, particularly taking into consideration that the petitioner failed satisfy the relevancy and absence of any document, that those proposed witnesses as cited, they were either customers or applicants for loan, gave his ruling on 21.11.1988 that witnesses No. 4, 5, 6, 8 & 9 are not relevant. ln fact on that date, when this ruling was given by the presenting officer, the petitioner was even present during enquiry.

ln proceedings dated 5.8.1991, it has been recorded that despite various opportunities granted to petitioner, remained absent earlier dates even though he was granted opportunity to submit his written defence by 315'JJuly,

-91991, he failed to submit the same within the stipulated period. On 5.8.1991, petitioner appeared to submit that now he wants to engage a defence counsel.

presenting officer, recording was cooperating in the enquiry and even after fixing a date of the enquiry after two years, petitioner failed to submit his defence, rejected petitioner's claim for engaging defence counsel at that stage. lt is relevant to note that even though the remaining witnesses of the defence were gotdisallowed, they were also not examined by the petitioner. This only reflects that the petitioner was only buying time.

Therefore, the conduct of the petitioner disentitles him any relief on ground he was denied reasonable t , opportunity of hearing to defend himself.

10.The petitioner has relied upon the judgment in the case of State of Haryana (supra) and order passed in the case of Bi/aspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank (supra).

On facts of the case and considerations made by this Court as above, l do not find that the is entitled to any relief and the decision cited as above are distinguishable on facts.

11. ln the result, l do not find any merits in the petition. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.

Sd/- VShrivastava) (Manindra Mohan Judge'

Praveen