Dudheshwar Ram v. The Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank

Judgment

4. The Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank Through Its Chairman, Sri Vishnu Commercial Complex, Ashochak Chowk, New Bypass Road, Patna -800016 The General Manager, Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank, Sri Vishnu Commercial Complex, Ashochak Chowk, New Bypass Road, Patna -800016 The Regional Officer of the Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank, Aurangabad. The Branch Manager, Madhya Bihar Gramin Bank, Sonbhadra Banshi Branch, Arwal. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Vivek Prasad, Advocate Mr. Kshitiz Kumar, Advocate Mr.M.N. Parbat, Sr. Advocate Mr. Ved Prakash Srivastava, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN Date : 10-10-2023 ORAL JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, and learned senior counsel for the respondent.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for challenging the order dated 18.05.2016 passed by respondent No. 2, namely, the General Manager-cum-Disciplinary Authority (as contained in Annexure-5 to the writ petition) as well as the order dated 19.09.2016 passed by the Chairman- cum-Appellate Authority of the respondent Bank (as contained in Annexure-6 to the writ petition). Patna High Court CWJC No.563 of 2019 dt.10-10-2023

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the basis of the proceeding against the petitioner is the charge that has been issued against the petitioner vide Annexure P/2 to the writ petition in which an allegation was made that he was arrested on the allegation of taking bribe due to which the image and the interest of the bank has been disturbed. It has been alleged that the Enquiry Officer has been appointed and the petitioner was demanded to file a reply. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a unique case in which the base is Annexure P/1 to the writ petition which is an allegation of demanding a bribe but it transpires that in the said letter, the name of the petitioner is not there rather allegation has been made against the Branch Manager with his name. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner has filed his reply before the Enquiry Officer and in the Enquiry Report the Enquiry Officer has not reached on any conclusion and given his finding as follows:- “vfHk;kstu i{k ds }kjk lk{; ds vk/kkj ij vkjksi dks izekf.kr djus dk iz;kl fd;k x;k gS] tcfd cpko i{k us lEiw.kZ ?kVuk dks f”kdk;rdrkZ }kjk mUgs Qlkus dk lkft”k crkrs gw;s vkjksi dk [kaMu fd;k gS A cpko i{k ds }kjk fn;s x;s bl rdZ dk corroborative evidence ds vHkko esa laKku ugha fy;k tk ldrk gSa A Patna High Court CWJC No.563 of 2019 dt.10-10-2023 vr% lanfHkZr vkjksi izekf.kr gksrk gSs A

4. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was an employee of Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank which is a regional rural bank established on 01.01.2019 U/s 3 (1) of Regional Rural Bank Act, 1976. Learned counsel submits that the Punjab National Bank is the sponsored Bank of Dakshin Bihar Gramin Bank. As such, the rules and regulations of the Punjab National Bank have been created by the Punjab National Bank.

5. In response, learned counsel for the Bank submits that it is the NABARD (National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development) that deals with the service conditions of the employees of regional rural banks.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that from the enquiry report, it is crystal clear that not a single witness has been examined and it is in gross violation of departmental proceedings in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570 in which it has been held that a departmental proceeding is a quasi- judicial proceeding. The enquiry officer performs a quasi- judicial function. The charges levelled against the delinquent Patna High Court CWJC No.563 of 2019 dt.10-10-2023 officer must be found to have been proved. The enquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is not a single witness who came forward to prove the allegation against the petitioner and therefore, the punishment order following the enquiry report is absolutely bad in law. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the order passed by the Appellate Authority has also been passed without considering the points raised by the petitioner in the memo.

7. Learned counsel for the Bank on the other hand submits that in the enquiry report, the complaint letter which is fardbayan of the FIR has been marked as MEx 3, FIR has been marked as MEx 4 and the arrest memo has been marked as MEx 11. He further submits that not a single witness has been examined by the enquiry officer but the name of the petitioner was added to the FIR later when Rs.1000/- was recovered from his possession. On the point of reasoning mentioned by the enquiry officer, learned senior counsel submits that in the conclusive portion which has been held by the enquiry Officer that the charges have been proved and therefore, the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority on the basis of proved Patna High Court CWJC No.563 of 2019 dt.10-10-2023 charge and as well as the Appellate Authority affirming the order passed in the departmental proceeding is absolutely in accordance with the law.

8. Learned Senior counsel for the bank submits that this argument of the petitioner is correct only up to the extent that no witness has been examined.

9. In the light of the submissions made by the parties and going through the documents one thing is very much clear to this Court that before enquiry officer, not a single witness has been examined, and in the original allegation that Annexure P/1, i.e., MEx3, name of the present petitioner is not there. The complainant who is the son of the loanee has not come forward on behalf of the bank to adduce any evidence. It would be apposite to quote paragraphs nos. 14 and 17 of the judgement rendered in the case of Roop Singh Negi (supra) as under:- “ 14. Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding. The enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function. The charges levelled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. The enquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties. The purported evidence collected during investigation by the investigating officer against all the accused by itself could not be treated to be evidence in the disciplinary proceeding. No witness was examined to prove the said documents. The Patna High Court CWJC No.563 of 2019 dt.10-10-2023 management witnesses merely tendered the documents and did not prove the contents thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the enquiry officer on the FIR which could not have been treated as evidence.

17. In Moni Shankar v. Union of India [(2008) 3 SCC 484 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 819] this Court held: (SCC p. 492, para 17) “17. The departmental proceeding is a quasi-judicial one. Although the provisions of the Evidence Act are not applicable in the said proceeding, principles of natural justice are required to be complied with. The courts exercising power of judicial review are entitled to consider as to whether while inferring commission of misconduct on the part of a delinquent officer relevant piece of evidence has been taken into consideration and irrelevant facts have been excluded therefrom. Inference on facts must be based on evidence which meet the requirements of legal principles. The Tribunal was, thus, entitled to arrive at its own conclusion on the premise that the evidence adduced by the Department, even if it is taken on its face value to be correct in its entirety, meet the requirements of burden of proof, namely, preponderance of probability. If on such evidences, the test of the doctrine of proportionality has not been satisfied, the Tribunal was within its domain to interfere. We must place on record that the doctrine of unreasonableness is giving way to the doctrine of proportionality.

9.1 It is crystal clear that the departmental proceeding is a separate proceeding and basically a quasi-judicial proceeding. The charges levelled against the delinquent officer must have been proved by the officials so that the enquiry officer must reach a finding. From the enquiry report also it is clear that there is no conclusiveness in the finding in the enquiry report. Patna High Court CWJC No.563 of 2019 dt.10-10-2023

10. As such, in the opinion of this Court, the departmental proceeding suffers from defect. Accordingly, the order dated 18.05.2016 passed by respondent No. 2, namely, the General Manager-cum-Disciplinary Authority (as contained in Annexure-5 to the writ petition) as well as the order dated

19.09.2016 passed by the Chairman-cum-Appellate Authority of the respondent Bank (as contained in Annexure-6 to the writ petition) are hereby set aside. (Dr. Anshuman, J) Ashwini/- AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date Transmission Date NA 13/10/2023 NA