Sunitee Kumari Sinha v. Bhojpur Rohtas Gramin Bank & Ors.

petitioner’s husband then challenged the punishment order by which six increments were withheld with cumulative effect by filing CWJC No 9861 of 2003. The same was disposed of by order dated 23.09.2003 directing the petitioner’s husband to prefer appeal against the said order while condoning the delay in filing the appeal as the punishment order was dated 05.10.2001. Accordingly, petitioner’s husband preferred appeal which was dismissed by a detailed reasoned order dated

22.12.2003 which has now been challenged in CWJC No 15952 of 2005 by the wife of the employee. 4 On behalf of petitioner’s husband, it is submitted that once proceedings were initiated against him which concluded in exonerating him in the year 1989, for the same period, fresh disciplinary proceedings could not be initiated on the principle of double jeopardy. It is further submitted that the petitioner’s husband having filed an appeal, the appellate order has not considered all the grounds that he has taken in appeal. Having heard the parties and considered the matter, in my view, these writ petitions do not merit consideration. A reference to the so-called first proceedings would show that it was mere explanation asked for reconciling accounts and as to under what circumstances he had granted various loans and advances beyond his power. No disciplinary proceedings were initiated. On mere explanation received, he was warned.

Then there was special audit. In this special audit which also covered the period earlier enquired into, again various serious irregularities were found. They, inter alia, included giving advances beyond the authorisation limits. Petitioner’s husband’s defence was that he had earlier given explanation and he was exonerated. His further defence was that Bank suffered no loss because all advances were duly recovered. This explanation was not accepted and the Enquiry Officer found him guilty on six out of nine counts with two further counts being partially proved and one charge not being proved. This report was accepted by the disciplinary authority and petitioner’s husband was asked to show cause against proposed penalty. Petitioner’s husband demanded certain papers and, thereafter, stopped 5 responding and, as such, penalty order was passed. At this stage, I may first note that in fact the first proceedings was administrative proceeding calling for explanation as to under what circumstances certain advances were given, certain transactions entered.

He was not exonerated as submitted by the petitioner’s husband. It was found that there were serious derelictions and, therefore, he was warned. Now in subsequent inspection of records, more irregularities were discovered. This time, a formal departmental disciplinary proceeding was initiated. In these proceedings, petitioner’s husband was found guilty and punished accordingly. Thus, there is no question of double jeopardy. There was only one departmental disciplinary proceeding. The earlier was an only administrative proceeding seeking clarifications with regard to his conduct and the accounts of the Branch. Now we come to the appeal proceedings. The appellate order is Annexure-1. It has noted clearly all the contentions that were raised and has, by an elaborate order, rejected them. Petitioner’s husband’s submission that all his contentions have not been considered is not correct. In matters of disciplinary proceedings, an officer is not to record a detailed judgment when it is affirming an order in appeal.

The appellate authority has agreed with the original authority’s order. It has taken note of the criticism of petitioner’s husband to the original order. This Court is not sitting in appeal over the appellate order. The scope of 6 judicial review is limited. Neither any procedural wrong nor judicial impropriety has been shown. On the other hand, it stands admitted that petitioner’s husband had knowingly exceeded his authority in giving loans and advances beyond his authority. It matters little if there was no loss to the Bank. In view of the aforesaid, I am unable to persuade myself to interfere in the matter. Both the writ petitions are, thus, dismissed. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)