Gurgaon Gramin Bank v. Vijender Singh

Mr. Rajesh Garg, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Aseem Aggarwal, Advocate, for Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate, for the respondent. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL) The defendant is in second appeal against the judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court by which the judgment and decree of the Trial Court has been reversed. A few skeletal facts, which are necessary to unfold the controversy in this case are that the plaintiff was proceeded against in a departmental inquiry on the allegations of embezzlement and vide enquiry report dated 20.09.1998 he was held guilty. The Chairman of the appellant-bank passed the order of his dismissal dated 31.03.1989 which was challenged by the plaintiff by way of an appeal dated 11.05.1989 to the Board of Directors, which was rejected in its meeting dated 27.07.1989 and conveyed to him vide letter dated 26.08.1989. In his suit for declaration, the plaintiff challenged the order of dismissal dated

31.03.1989 and the order dated 27.07.1989 of the Board of Directors rejecting his appeal, as conveyed to him vide letter dated 26.08.1989, on the ground that it is contrary to the rules and regulations and against the principle of natural justice. RSA No.140 of 1995 (O&M) and XOBJ No.7-C of 1995 **** -2- In the written statement, it was alleged that due opportunity was given to the plaintiff to defend during the inquiry and on the basis of the evidence collected against him, he was found guilty. The Chairman of the appellant–Bank passed the order which commensurate with the offence committed and the appeal was dismissed by the Board of Directors on merits. On the pleadings of the parties, various issues were framed and after evaluating the available evidence on record, the Trial Court dismissed his suit, whereas the First Appellate Court allowed the appeal on the ground that order Ex.P7 dated 26.08.1989 passed by the Board of Directors is without reason. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the Courts below, the present appeal is preferred by the appellant-bank. The plaintiff also filed cross objections. On 18.09.1995, the appeal was admitted and the cross objections were ordered to be heard along with the main case. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant filed an application, i.e. CM No.1366-C of 1995, under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [for short “CPC”] in order to place on record the copy of proceedings dated 27.07.1989 whereby appeal filed by the plaintiff was considered by the Board of Directors and reasons were recorded for agreeing with the punishment awarded by the Chairman of the appellant-bank. Notice in the application was issued, to which reply was filed, but the application, at that time, was not decided when the appeal was admitted. I have heard learned counsel for the parties on the application for additional evidence. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in terms of Order 41 Rule 27 of the CPC, additional evidence can be led in respect of the documentary evidence which goes to the root of the case or for any other substantial cause. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that additional evidence can be allowed only if it is proved by the applicant that after exercise of due diligence the evidence was not within their knowledge and could not be produced at the time when they were leading their evidence. After considering the submissions made by both the learned counsel for the parties in this regard, I am of the view that the plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration to challenge the order of the Board of Directors as illegal, which was conveyed to him vide letter dated 26.08.1989 and it was incumbent upon him to place on record the said order as it was the main document, but strangely enough, RSA No.140 of 1995 (O&M) and XOBJ No.7-C of 1995 **** -3- without looking into the said document as it was not before the learned First Appellate Court, the appeal of the plaintiff has been allowed by observing that the impugned order passed by the Board of Directors was without any reason. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the said proceedings of the meeting of the Board of Directors dated 27.07.1989, which are sought to be produced on record by way of additional evidence, is a necessary document and, hence the application is allowed. Adverting to the merits of the case, after taking into consideration the order dated 27.07.1989, this Court has to opine as to whether there is a substantial question of law involved in this appeal as envisaged under Section 100 of the CPC. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the substantial question of law involved in this appeal is as to “whether learned Appellate Court has erred in law in allowing the appeal filed by the respondent on the ground that Board of Directors have not assigned any reason, may be in brief, while dismissing the appeal, without even considering the said order dated

27.07.1989”. In this regard, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the punishing authority is not even required to give reasons while agreeing with the report of the inquiry officer, rather it is required to give reason if it does not agree with the findings of the inquiry officer. He has relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the cases of State of Madras Vs. A.R.Srinivasan, AIR 1966 Supreme Court 1827 and Ram Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, AIR 1987 Supreme Court 2043. Learned counsel for the respondent, however, has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Chairman, Disciplinary Authority, Rani Lakshmi Bai Kshetriya Gramin Bank Vs. Jagdish Sharan Varshney and others, 2009 AIR (SC) 3276 to contend that it is an essential requirement of rule of law that some reasons, at least in brief, must be disclosed in judicial or quasi- judicial order, even if it is an order of affirmation. I have heard both learned counsel for the parties and perused the record carefully with their able assistance. Admittedly, the plaintiff was dismissed from service on the charge of embezzlement of the amount of the bank. The inquiry officer had indicted the plaintiff and the punishing authority passed the order of dismissal. Insofar as these orders are concerned, these have been upheld by the learned First Appellate RSA No.140 of 1995 (O&M) and XOBJ No.7-C of 1995 **** -4- Court but for the order of the Board of Directors, who had dealt with the appeal filed by the plaintiff against the order of the dismissal passed by the Chairman of the bank and observed that it does not disclose any reason. The plaintiff has also filed Cross Objections No.7-C-1995 in this appeal, but from the resume of the facts, I have found that the only issue which has been raised before this Court and contested by the respondent is that whether the order dated 27.07.1989 passed by the Board of Directors, while deciding the appeal, contained some reasons, may be in brief. In this regard, it would be appropriate to reproduce the reasons mentioned in the order dated 27.07.1989, which are as under: - “The Session of the Board, which was held to consider the above appeals, Sri K.D.Sachdeva, Director nominated by Reserve Bank of India was unanimously elected as Chairman for the meeting. The Board considered the appeals in the light of the offences committed by the Officers/Employees. The Board was of the view that the punishments awarded by the Chairman to above employees/Officers were fully justifiable and in conformity with the rules and regulations laid down for the purpose. Further the Board arrived at the conclusion that the offences included committed misappropriation/embezzlement of funds by the above persons were of serious nature and prejudicial to the interest of the Bank. Therefore, the offences merited the punishment awarded employees/officers. After considering the matter in all its aspects, the Board of Directors unanimously rejected the appeals the above officers/employees.” After reading the aforesaid proceedings dated 27.07.1989, I am fully satisfied that the reasons have been given by the Board of Directors while confirming the punishment awarded by the Chairman of the Bank as it has observed that the order is in conformity with the rules and regulations laid down and that the offence committed by the plaintiff of misappropriation/ RSA No.140 of 1995 (O&M) and XOBJ No.7-C of 1995 **** -5- embezzlement of the amount of the Bank is of serious nature and prejudicial to the interest of the bank, therefore, the offence merited the punishment awarded or in the other words, it commensurate with the award of punishment. In view of the above discussion, the substantial question of law involved in this appeal is answered in favour of the appellant and as such, the appeal is allowed. The Cross Objection filed by the plaintiff is found to be without any merit and the same is hereby dismissed. The parties are directed to bear their own costs. November 17, 2010 vinod* (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) JUDGE