Vandana Sood v. The Kagra Central Co-operative Bank Ltd

The Hon(cid:146)ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. (cid:133)Respondents. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. __________________________________________________________ For the petitioner. Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj, Advocate. : For respondent No. 1. : Mr. J. L. Bhardwaj, Advocate. None for respondents No. 2 and 3. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rajiv Sharma, Judge (Oral): Petitioner preferred a second appeal under Rule 64 to the Board of Directors. The same was rejected on 7th January, 2005 by up-holding the orders of the Managing Director conveyed to the petitioner on 9th September, 2004. A bare perusal of the order dated 7th January, 2005 reveals that the same is neither speaking nor detailed. The appellate authority has to take into consideration all the grounds/pleas raised in the memorandum of appeal. There must be due application of mind while deciding a statutory appeal.

Their Lordships of the Hon(cid:146)ble Supreme Court in Roop Singh Negi versus Punjab National Bank and others (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 570 have held as under: 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. No. - 2 - (cid:147)Furthermore, the order of disciplinary authority as also the appellate authority are not supported by any reason. As the orders passed by them have severe civil consequences, appropriate reasons should have assigned. If the enquiry officer had relied upon the confession made by the appellant, there was no reason as to why the order of discharge passed by the criminal Court on the basis of selfsame evidence should not have been taken into consideration. The materials brought on record pointing out the guilt are required to be proved. A decision must be arrived at on some evidence, which is legally admissible. The provisions of the Evidence Act may not be applicable in a departmental proceeding but the principles of natural justice are. As the report of the enquiry officer was based on merely ipse dixit as also surmises and conjectures, the same could not have been sustained. The inference drawn by the enquiry officer apparently were not supported by any evidence. Suspicion as is well known, however high may be, can under no circumstances be held to be substitute for legal proof.

In Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank versus Jagdish Sharan Varshney and others, (2009) 4 SCC 240, their Lordships of the Hon(cid:146)ble Supreme Court have held that the appellate authority must give reasons while affirming the order of lower authority. Their Lordships of the Hon(cid:146)ble Supreme Court in G. Vallikumari versus Andhra Education Society and others, 2010 (2) SCC 497 have held that the disciplinary authority must record reasons while passing the order.