S.Veeramani v. Chairman REPCO Bank – Head Office

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRASDATED 11.08.2009CORAMTHE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.SUNDRESHW.P. NO.14217 OF 2008S.Veeramani .. PetitionerVersus1. Chairman REPCO Bank – Head Office 33, North Usman Road T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017.2. Managing Director REPCO Bank - Head Office 33, North Usman Road T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017.3. The General Manager REPCO Bank – Head Office 33, North Usman Road T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017...RespondentsPRAYER : Petition filed Under Article 226 of the Constitution ofIndia praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call forthe records of the first respondent in Proceedings bearingEMP.No.271/08/GAD-1 dated 14.05.2008 confirming the order passed bythe second respondent in Ref.E.M.P.No.271/2008/GAD-1 dated 28.02.2008and quash the same and consequently to direct the respondents toissue the posting order to the petitioner with all arrears of pay andall financial and attendant benefits.For Petitioner: Mr.M.GovindarajFor Respondents: Mrs.A.V.BharathiO R D E RThe writ petition has been filed challenging the proceedingsof the respondents wherein the petitioner has been made to lose hislien over the post on the ground that he was absent for duty from28.04.2007 onwards. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2.It is the case of the petitioner that he has been workingas a Junior Assistant with the respondents from 01.12.2004. When anorder of transfer was issued on 26.04.2007, the petitioner gave arepresentation to retain him at Chennai instead of Namakkal Branch onthe ground of his ill health. However, the said request was notconsidered and under those circumstances, the petitioner wasconstrained to file a writ petition before this Hon'ble Court. Thesaid writ petition was dismissed giving liberty to the petitioner toapproach the respondents by making representation.3.Thereafter, the petitioner has made a representation andthe said representation was rejected by the respondents. However,inspite of the said rejection order, the petitioner has not chosen tojoin the duty and hence the impugned order was passed on 28.02.2008whereby making the petitioner to lose his lien over the post.Challenging the same, the petitioner has preferred an appeal to thefirst respondent who has also dismissed the appeal.4.The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that theimpugned orders have been liable to be set aside since theirviolation of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as withouteven upholding an opportunity to the petitioner to putforth his casethey have been passed. The learned counsel for the petitioner furthersubmitted that the power under Regulation No.22(15) of Repco Bank,Clerical and Sub-ordinate Staff Service Regulation, 1994 cannot beexercised without conducting an enquiry and giving a finding thatthe petitioner was deliberately absent. The learned counsel for thepetitioner also submitted that when various factual and legal groundshave been raised by way of representations, the first respondent hassimply rejected the appeal without even assigning any reasons andwithout even communicating the order. Hence, the learned counsel forthe petitioner submitted that the order passed by the firstrespondent confirming the order of the second respondent also willhave to be setaside for non application of mind.5.Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondentssubmitted that the power under Regulation No.22(15) of Repco Bank,Clerical and Sub-ordinate Staff Service Regulation, 1994 is automaticand therefore, the question of conducting an enquiry or issuing showcause notice presiding the order forfeiting the benefit of thepetitioner over the post does not arise. The learned counsel for therespondents further submitted that inasmuch as the first respondentis confirming the order of the second respondent there is nonecessity for giving reasons for dismissing the appeal.6.It is seen that the petitioner has preferred an appealraising various grounds before the first respondent challenging theorder passed by the second respondent among other grounds. Thepetitioner has also raised the plea that he has not been heard and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the second respondent has passed the impugned order without evenaffording an opportunity and without conducting an enquiry.Therefore, the question as to whether the regulation made upon by therespondents has to impose after following the procedure or the sameis automatic has to be considered by the first respondent. Furthermore certain factual aspects have also been placed before the firstrespondent. A reading of the order passed on 14.05.2008 wouldindicate that the order has been passed on a total non application ofmind in violations of the principles of natural justice. A reasonedorder is a basic right of a person. When a power is conferred on aauthority and when adjudication is sought to be made by the saidauthority proper reasons will have to be assigned for allowing orrejecting the appeal. The present case on hand, no such procedure hadbeen adopted. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the orderpassed by the first respondent is liable to be setaside. 7.Further, it is seen that the first respondent has notpassed any independent and separate order but only directed theGeneral Manager to inform the petitioner that the appeal is rejected,such a procedure is not permissible in law. The first respondentbeing the competent authority ought to have passed a reasoned order.The petitioner is entitled to know the reasons for rejecting hisappeal. In the judgment reported in (2009) 4 SCC 240 [RANI LAKSHMIBAI KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK vs. JAGDISH SHARAN VARSHNEY], the Hon'bleSupreme Court has held that the appellate authority has to give briefreasons in support of his decision. Similarly, in STATE OFUTTARANCHAL vs. SUNIL KUMAR SINGH NEGI reported in (2008) 11 SCC 205,the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows:"8.Now, let us see the impugned order passedby the High Court, which reads as under:"I have perused the order dated 27.05.2005passed by respondent 2 and I do not find anyillegality in the order so as to interfere underArticle 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Thewrit petition lacks merit and is liable to bedismissed."9.In view of the specific stand taken by theDepartment in the affidavit which we havereferred to above, the cryptic order passed bythe High Court cannot be sustained. The absenceof reasons has rendered the High Court order notsustainable. Similar view was expressed in Stateof U.P. v. Battan. About two decades back inState of Maharashtra v. Vithal rao PritiraoChawan the desirability of a speaking order washighlighted. The requirement of indicating https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ reasons has been judicially recognised asimperative. The view was reiterated in JawaharLal Singh v. Naresh Singh.10.In Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar thisCourt has held that reason is the heartbeat ofevery conclusion and without the same, it becomeslifeless."8.Hence taking into consideration of the above said legalprinciples this Court is of the view that the order passed in theappeal is liable to be set aside. 9.Accordingly, the order dated 14.05.2008 is hereby setasideand the first respondent is directed to consider the appeal petitionfiled by the petitioner on merits and in accordance with law within aperiod of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of theorder.10.With these observations, the writ petition is disposedof. No costs. Sd/-Asst. Registrar,/True Copy/Sub-Asst. Registrar.sri1. Chairman REPCO Bank – Head Office 33, North Usman Road, T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017.2. Managing Director REPCO Bank - Head Office 33, North Usman Road, T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017.3. The General Manager REPCO Bank – Head Office 33, North Usman Road, T.Nagar, Chennai – 600 017.+ one cc to Mr.S.Govindaraj, Advocate, SR.No.37726+ one cc to M/S.V.BHARATHI, Advocate, SR.No.37663SSK (CO)A.S./29.08.2009W.P. NO.14217 OF 2008