//
you're reading...
legal issues

The disciplinary authority placed the appellant under suspension and issued a charge-sheet dated 31.01.1989 against him for misconduct punishable under Regulation 30(1) of the Staff Service Regulations. In the charge-sheet, it was alleged that the appellant sanctioned and distributed loans to a large number of brick manufacturing units in a very short period of time, but had not in fact disbursed the entire loan amount to the borrowers and part of the loan amount was misappropriated by him. -.The grounds on which it is proposed to take action have to be reduced to the form of a definite charge or charges which have to be communicated to the person charged together with a statement of the allegations on which each charge is based and any other circumstance which it is proposed to be taken into consideration in passing orders has also to be stated. This rule embodies a principle which is one of the basic contents of a reasonable or adequate opportunity for defending oneself. If a person is not told clearly and definitely what the allegations are on which the charges preferred against him are founded he cannot possibly, by projecting his own imagination, discover all the facts and circumstances that may be in the

The Sanchi stupa in Sanchi, Madhya Pradesh bui...

Image via Wikipedia

 Reportable

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

 CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 7864-7865 OF 2011

 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) NOs.33088-33089 OF 2010)

Anil Gilurker ... Appellant

 Versus

Bilaspur Raipur Kshetria Gramin Bank 

& Anr. ... Respondents

 O R D E R

A. K. PATNAIK, J.

 Leave granted.

2. These are appeals against the order dated 28.04.2010 

 of the Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court 

 in Writ Appeal No.57 of 2010 and Writ Appeal No.82 of 

 2010.

3. The facts very briefly are that on 03.05.1984 the 

 appellant was appointed as a Branch Manager in the 

 Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank by way of 

 direct recruitment and he successfully completed the 

 period of probation. While he was working on the post 

 2

of Branch Manager in Branch Patewa, he sanctioned 

and distributed loans to a large number of brick 

manufacturing units under the Integrated Gram 

Development Programme. The disciplinary authority 

placed the appellant under suspension and issued a 

charge-sheet dated 31.01.1989 against him for 

misconduct punishable under Regulation 30(1) of the 

Staff Service Regulations. In the charge-sheet, it was 

alleged that the appellant sanctioned and distributed 

loans to a large number of brick manufacturing units 

in a very short period of time, but had not in fact 

disbursed the entire loan amount to the borrowers and 

part of the loan amount was misappropriated by him. 

The appellant was asked to submit his written defence 

in reply to the charges. On 11.02.1989, the appellant 

submitted his written defence denying the allegations 

made in the charge-sheet. An Inquiry Officer enquired 

into the charges against the appellant and submitted 

his report with a finding that the witnesses produced 

by the Bank had not said that what was actually 

advanced was less than the loan amount, and 

 3

although there were some serious irregularities, the 

charge of financial corruption against the appellant 

had not been proved. The disciplinary authority in his 

order dated 10.09.1991 disagreed with the findings of 

the Inquiry Officer and held that the charge of financial 

corruption against the appellant had been proved and 

that the appellant had not only violated the Rules of 

the Bank, but had also tried to cause financial loss to 

the Bank and by abusing his position, had lowered 

down the reputation of the Bank. In the order dated 

10.09.1991, the disciplinary authority proposed to 

impose the punishment of removal of the appellant 

along with forfeiture of the contribution of the Bank to 

the Provident Fund of the appellant under Section 

50(1) of the Staff Regulations. By the order dated 

10.09.1991, the disciplinary authority directed that a 

copy of the order and report of the Inquiry Officer be 

sent to the appellant to show-cause why he should not 

be punished as proposed. On 18.09.1991, the 

appellant submitted his reply to the show-cause notice 

and on 25.11.1991, the disciplinary authority passed 

 4

 the order of removal. Aggrieved, the appellant filed an 

 appeal against the order of the disciplinary authority, 

 but the appeal was dismissed by the appellate 

 authority.

4. The appellant then filed a Writ Petition before the 

 Madhya Pradesh High Court challenging the order of 

 removal passed by the disciplinary authority. After the 

 reorganization of the Madhya Pradesh in the year 

 2000, the Writ Petition was transferred to the 

 Chhattisgarh High Court and was heard by a learned 

 Single Judge of the Chhattisgarh High Court. The 

 learned Single Judge in his judgment dated 

 22.02.2010 found that in the charge-sheet, there is no 

 reference to any specific documents or to the names of 

 the persons who had not been given the loan amounts 

 and accordingly took the view that in the charge-sheet 

 there were no specific charges. Relying on the 

 decisions of this Court in Surath Chandra Chakrabarty 

 v. State of West Bengal [(1970) 3 SCC 548], Sawai 

 Singh v. State of Rajasthan [(1986) 3 SCC 454] and 

 Union of India & Ors. v. Gyan Chand Chattar [(2009) 12 

 5

 SCC 78], the learned Single Judge held that when the 

 charges levelled against the delinquent officer in the 

 charge-sheet were vague and not specific and the 

 entire enquiry is vitiated. The learned Single Judge 

 quashed the orders of the disciplinary authority and 

 the appellate authority and directed reinstatement of 

 the appellant in service with continuity in service and 

 without loss of seniority in the post to which he would 

 be entitled to. The learned Single Judge further 

 directed that the appellant will be entitled to 

 compensation of Rs.1.5 lacs in lieu of arrears of his 

 salary. 

5. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge 

 granting only Rs.1.5 lacs as compensation in lieu of 

 arrears of salary, the appellant filed Writ Appeal No.57 

 of 2010 and aggrieved by the impugned order of 

 learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition quashing the 

 orders of the disciplinary authority and the appellate 

 authority, the respondents filed Writ Appeal No.82 of 

 2010. After hearing the Writ Appeals, the Division 

 Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court held in the 

 6

impugned order that the charges against the appellant 

as described in the charge-sheet were not vague as on 

the basis of documents mentioned in the charge-sheet, 

it has been alleged that the appellant had sanctioned 

the loans and had shown the loans only on paper but 

had not actually disbursed the loans to the borrowers. 

The Division Bench of the High Court, however, held 

that as the disciplinary authority had disagreed with 

the findings in the inquiry report, he should have 

furnished his reasons for the disagreement to the 

appellant before passing the order of punishment. The 

Division Bench of the High Court further held that the 

disciplinary authority cannot conduct further enquiry 

suo motu to fill up the lacuna in the enquiry. The 

Division Bench of the High Court allowed both the 

appeals and directed that the disciplinary authority 

will consider the inquiry report, the evidence recorded 

by the Enquiry Officer and the documents relied upon 

in the charge-sheet and take a fresh decision in 

accordance with law. The Division Bench of the High 

Court further observed in the impugned order that if 

 7

 the disciplinary authority takes a view on 

 reconsideration of the matter not to take any further 

 action against the appellant, he shall be given all the 

 consequential benefits along with reinstatement. 

6. We have heard Mr. Ravindra Shrivastava, learned 

 counsel for the appellant and Mr. Akshat Shrivastava, 

 learned counsel for the respondents, and we are of the 

 considered opinion that the Division Bench of the High 

 Court was not correct in taking a view in the impugned 

 order that the charges against the appellant were not 

 vague. The English translation of the charges and the 

 statement of imputations extracted from the charge-

 sheet dated 31.01.1989 served on the appellant is 

 reproduced hereinbelow: 

 Charge Sheet No. D/A/756 dated 31.1.89

 Statement of imputations Charge

While working as Branch Tempted with his malafide 

Manager in Branch Patewa, intention serious violation of 

in the first quarter of the the Rules and interests of the 

year 1988, have sanctioned Bank and Administration, in 

and distributed loan of brick a very short period of time 

manufacturing in large sanction the loan of Brick 

number under the Integrated manufacturing in large scale 

Gram Development under the "I. Gram. Dev. 

Programme by committing Prog." And distributed and in 

unauthorized irregularities most of the loan cases, 

contrary to the rules and without actually distribution 

 8

interest of the bank and of the entire loan amount, 

administration. In most of you have completed the 

these loan cases you have documentary proceedings, 

shown cash distribution of and showing the cash 

the entire loan and has given distribution of the entire loan 

only one minor part of the amount, only a minor share 

loan amount to the Borrower of the loan has been given 

in cash and from the balance cash to the concerned 

amount, some amount has borrower and from the 

been deposited in their remaining amount some 

saving accounts (deducting amount has been deposited 

contribution amount in the account of the 

equivalent to the amount for borrower and the balance 

closing the loan account) and amount in connivance with 

the remaining amount has other persons have been 

been grabbed by you, branch grabbed. With the intention 

employees and in collusions to cover up your this act, 

with the Gram Sewaks. After only after a few time of the 

a very little time adjusting loan distribution, you have 

the contribution amount in withdrawn the amount from 

these loan accounts, you the saving accounts of the 

have withdrawn the amount concerned borrowers and 

from the Saving Accounts of most of the accounts have 

the concerned borrowers, been closed before time. As 

you have closed most of the such for the fulfillment of 

loan accounts much before your personal gain you have 

the time fixed for the deliberately misused the 

repayment. position of your post and has 

 committed financial 

 corruption in large scale. 

 From which cause serious 

 shock the interests of the 

 bank administration and the 

 borrower also, the reputation 

 of the bank has also been 

 lowered down. Your this act 

 is a misconduct under 

 Sections 17, 19 and 30(1) of 

 the Employees Collection 

 Service Regulations. 

 9

7. A plain reading of the charges and the statement of 

 imputations reproduced above would show that only 

 vague allegations were made against the appellant that 

 he had sanctioned loans to a large number of brick 

 manufacturing units by committing irregularities, but 

 did not disburse the entire loan amount to the 

 borrowers and while a portion of the loan amount was 

 deposited in the account of the borrowers, the balance 

 was misappropriated by him and others. The details of 

 the loan accounts or the names of the borrowers have 

 not been mentioned in the charges. The amounts of 

 loan which were sanctioned and the amounts which 

 were actually disbursed to the borrowers and the 

 amounts alleged to have been misappropriated by the 

 appellant have not been mentioned. 

8. We also find that along with the charge-sheet dated 

 31.01.1989 no statement of imputations giving the 

 particulars of the loan accounts or the names of the 

 borrowers, the amounts of loans sanctioned, disbursed 

 and misappropriated were furnished to the appellant, 

 and yet the disciplinary authority has called upon the 

 10

 appellant to submit his written defence statement in 

 reply to the charges. We fail to appreciate how the 

 appellant could have submitted his written statement 

 in defence in respect of the charges and how a fair 

 enquiry could be held unless he was furnished with 

 the particulars of the loan accounts or the names of 

 the borrowers, the amounts of loan sanctioned, the 

 amounts actually disbursed and the amounts 

 misappropriated were also furnished in the charge-

 sheet. 

9. As has been held by this Court in Surath Chandra 

 Chakrabarty v. State of West Bengal (supra): 

 "5. .....The grounds on which it is proposed to 

 take action have to be reduced to the form of a 

 definite charge or charges which have to be 

 communicated to the person charged together 

 with a statement of the allegations on which 

 each charge is based and any other 

 circumstance which it is proposed to be taken 

 into consideration in passing orders has also 

 to be stated. This rule embodies a principle 

 which is one of the basic contents of a 

 reasonable or adequate opportunity for 

 defending oneself. If a person is not told 

 clearly and definitely what the allegations are 

 on which the charges preferred against him 

 are founded he cannot possibly, by projecting 

 his own imagination, discover all the facts and 

 circumstances that may be in the 

 11

 contemplation of the authorities to be 

 established against him....." 

10. This position of law has been reiterated in the recent 

 case of Union of India & Ors. v. Gyan Chand Chattar 

 (supra) and in Para 35 of the judgment as reported in 

 the SCC, this Court has observed that the law can be 

 summarized that an enquiry is to be conducted against 

 any person giving strict adherence to the statutory 

 provisions and principles of natural justice and the 

 charges should be specific, definite and giving details 

 of the incident which formed the basis of charges and 

 no enquiry can be sustained on vague charges. 

11. We, therefore, allow these appeals, set aside the 

 impugned order of the Division Bench and restore the 

 order of the learned Single Judge. Considering the 

 peculiar facts and circumstances, we delete the 

 direction of the learned Single Judge to pay Rs.1.5 lacs 

 to the appellant as compensation in lieu of arrears of 

 salary and we are also not inclined to grant any 

 backwages to the appellant. There shall be no order as 

 to costs. 

 12

 .............................J.

 (R. V. Raveendran)

 .............................J.

 (A. K. Patnaik)

New Delhi,

September 15, 2011. 

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 2,887,740 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,905 other followers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com
%d bloggers like this: