State Of Haryana v. Rajinder Singh
! " #$"%&' ( '
!
')* '*+,-
))* ./)0.12033*+).!1.2)0*., 44*33), 5*.,1, 6*.20 7 ,)83*9#.8 *,4*)
!!!
!
"
# $
% &' () &(&* +
,"
-$ .
"
/
0
0
&' () &(&* "
# $
.$ 0
1( (2 1))(
(* (2 1))1 & -
$
* 3 4 ,"
" 1)55
$ $ , 4
0 %0
- ,
$ &) (5 1)55
%0 0 0
$ (6 () 1)55
$
0 $ "
0
0 $ 0
1(( " (* () 1)55 . $"
17 1& 1)55 /
$$ 8 0
9$ "
$$ 8 :9$ "
;
$"
$$ 8
'
/
$ $
0 -$ 1( (2 1))(
$ $$ 8
1( (2 1))( 0
$ "
(* (2 1))1 <
$
- $
/
0 -$ $ 0 $"
$
"
0
0$ "
$
$
= $
-$
0 $
4
$
1& " $
$
-$ ) < .$ 0 -$ *( () 1))&
," 0
(& (1 1))6 .$ 0 -$ $
1( ,
# $
> $
$
4
$ $ "
0
$$ 8
$
$$ 8
"
9$ 00
"
1& >
$
61 & "
0 "
$
$
$ 4
4
$
$
.$ 0
1* >
4
00 $. #$ %
0 ," &1 (* 1)5' $
$ $"
0
$
.$ 0
"
> $0 61 & " 0
0 1& " 0 #$
17 &?1@ $. #$ $
4
$
1'
> $
"
$
$
1( "
"
=
$
$
-$
$ 0 $$ 8 $"
$
$
=
0"
$$ 8 $"
$
0
$$ 8 $"
$ 0
$
"
=
4
.$ 0 ,A $ 0 -$
-
+ )))6 1))'
1( 11 1))' ))* "$5,,0:;1<.20 $"
0 "
00
$
.$ 0
$
= "8. We are clearly of the opinion that the High Court has exceeded its jurisdiction in modifying the punishment while concurring with the findings of the Tribunal on facts. The High Court failed to bear in mind that the first respondent was a police constable and was serving in a disciplined force demanding strict adherence to the rules and procedures more than any other department. Having notices the fact that the first respondent has absented himself from duty without level on several occasions, we are unable to appreciate the High Court's observation that 'his absence from duty would not amount to such a grave charge'. Even otherwise on the facts of this case, there was no justification for the High Court to interfere with the punishment holding that 'the punishment does not commensurate with the gravity of the charge' especially when the High Court concurred with the findings of the Tribunal on facts. No case for interference with the punishment is made out."
1) ,
$$ 8
00
"
00
"
.$ 0
4 $$ 8 $"
$9$ "
0 4 ,
$
"
$
"
&( <$
#$ 17 &?1@ $. #$
4
$
0 1( "
&1 = 0"
0"
0 " 1( "
"
;
$
0"
0 " 1( " 0 00 "
,
"
#$
,0:;1<.
20>,+,*,14. && > $
"
$ $ "
:9$ "
;
0
$ $ "
&* B$ $0
0"
$0
"
,A $ 0 -$ =
-
+ 2*)2 &(1( (5 (& &(&1 &3.<&.35,?:0<!3&: )0*., ,A $ 0 -$ 9$ "
$
$ "
0 "
$
:9$ "
;
$ $ $ "
.$ 0
$
7. The appellant was working as a Manager of the respondentbank. A perusal of the charges, which are held to be proved by the Enquiry Officer, reveal that he has sanctioned and disbursed loans without following the due procedure contemplated under law and also there are allegations of misappropriation, disbursing loans irregularly in some instances to (a) units
without any shop/business; (b) more than one loan to members of same family etc. The Enquiry Officer, after considering oral and documentary evidence on record, has held that all the charges are proved. Based on the findings recorded C.A.No.4394 of 2010 by Enquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority has tentatively decided to impose punishment of compulsory retirement. Disciplinary authority has issued show cause notice dated 30.07.2005 by enclosing a copy of the enquiry report. In response to the show cause notice, the appellant has submitted his comments vide letter dated 16.08.2005 indicating that due to work pressure some operational lapses have occurred. Further he has also pleaded that if the bank has sustained any loss due to his fault, he is ready to bear such loss from his own source.
After filing the response to the show cause notice, order is passed by disciplinary authority imposing punishment of compulsory retirement. After Enquiry Officer records his findings, it is always open for the disciplinary authority to arrive at tentative conclusion of proposed punishment and it can indicate to the delinquent employee by enclosing a copy of the enquiry report. Though the learned counsel for the appellant has argued that even before tentative conclusion is arrived at by the disciplinary authority, the enquiry report has to be served upon him, but there is no such proposition laid down in the judgment of this C.A.No.4394 of 2010 Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad (supra).
In the aforesaid judgment of this Court it is held that delinquent employee is entitled to a copy of the enquiry report of the enquiry officer before the disciplinary authority takes a decision on the question of guilt of the delinquent. Merely because a show cause notice is issued by indicating the proposed punishment it cannot be said that disciplinary authority has taken a decision. A perusal of the show cause notice dated 30.07.2005 itself makes it clear that along with the show cause notice itself enquiry report was also enclosed. As such, it cannot be said that the procedure prescribed under the rules was not followed by respondentbank. We are of the view that the judgment of this Court in the case of Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad (supra) is not helpful to the case of the appellant.
Further, it is well settled that if the disciplinary authority accepts the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and passes an order, no detailed reasons are required to be recorded in the order imposing punishment. The punishment is imposed based on the findings recorded in the enquiry report, as such, no further C.A.No.
authority. As the departmental appeal was considered by the Board of Directors in the meeting held on 10.12.2005, the Board's decision is communicated vide order dated 21.12.2005 in Ref. No.LGB/I&V/Appeal/31/02/2005-06. In that view of the matter, we do not find any merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that orders impugned are devoid of reasons."
&2 , $0
4
&'
> 4
$0
$
0
0 $0
4
;
$
$ "
<$
9$"
"
.$
"
4
=
$
$
$
0 0 $"
0 &7 /
.$ 0
$0
$
"
"
/ @
!
%"'!