Ramesh Kumar Gaur v. Punjab National Bank & Anr.

CM stands disposed of. CM No.3397-C of 2010 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. RSA No.1116 of 2010 (O&M) This is plaintiff's second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby his suit, for declaration to the effect that the order of his dismissal dated 25.8.1993 is illegal, null and void, with a further prayer of mandatory injunction directing the respondents to grant him the benefits along with interest payable to him, was dismissed. In nut shell, the brief facts of the case of the appellant are that he was posted as a Peon with respondent No.1 and the respondents used to discriminate him on the basis of his caste. The appellant was charge- sheeted on the allegations of addition and alterations made in the RSA No.1116 of 2010 (O&M) 2 attendance register of the Bank. It was further averred that a false case was got registered against him on 15.8.1989 regarding which an enquiry was also held against him. He was acquitted on 24.12.1999 in case FIR No. 147 of 1989. However on the same charges, he was charge-sheeted by the respondents. The plaintiff was dismissed illegally on 25.8.1993 after conducting an illegal enquiry. It was further alleged that in the criminal case, allegations against him were of tampering the records which were wrong and improbable. Since the defendants failed to reinstate him after acquittal in the criminal case, the present suit was filed. The respondents appeared and filed written statement raising various preliminary objections. It was pleaded that the plaintiff-appellant cheated the Bank for wrongful gains and caused losses to the Bank by way of forging the bank records . The plaintiff also managed to tamper with the bank records, in the ledger sheet of his saving fund account, thereby raising the balance in his account without the knowledge of the Bank. It was further alleged that on 1.2.1989 when the act of forging and cheating by the plaintiff came to the knowledge of the respondent-Bank, the plaintiff was put under suspension with immediate effect 1.2.1989. The matter was also reported to the higher Authorities and thereafter, a case was lodged against him. Charge-sheet was served upon him on 9.8.1989 to which he submitted his reply on 20.3.1990. The reply was not found satisfactory by the Disciplinary Authority and departmental enquiry was ordered on

30.1.1992. The Enquiry Officer was appointed who conducted the enquiry as per rules. Due opportunity was given to him to defend his case and he was also given an opportunity of personal hearing by the Enquiry Officer however, the appellant failed to turn up. The Enquiry Officer submitted his final report observing that the charges against the appellant stand proved. On receipt of the said report, disciplinary Authority issued show cause RSA No.1116 of 2010 (O&M) 3 notice to the plaintiff proposing the punishment of dismissal without notice from the Bank service. He was required to give reply within 7 days of the said notice. No reply was submitted by the appellant. Rather he asked for a show cause notice in Hindu language. Accordingly, a show cause notice in Hindi proposing the above said punishment was served upon him to which he submitted his reply on 17.8.1993 on which date he was also heard personally. He was dismissed from the Bank service vide order dated

25.8.1993 and was informed through registered post. Aggrieved from the aforesaid order, the appellant had filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority which was also dismissed on 5.3.1994. All other averments made in the suit were denied and dismissal of the suit was prayed for. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court: “1) Whether the order dated 25.8.1993 of the defendants dismissing the plaintiff from service is illegal, null and void on the grounds mentioned in the plaint? OPP 2) If issue No.1 is proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled the arrears of salary and consequential benefits with interest as prayed for? OPP 3) Whether the suit is within limitation? OPP 4) Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD 5) Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the suit? OPD 6) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit? OPD RSA No.1116 of 2010 (O&M) 4 7) Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit? OPP 8) Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD 9) Relief.” On the basis of its findings on the above issues, the trial Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 6.11.2006 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-appellant. Appeal filed by the appellant before the Lower Appellate Court was also dismissed vide impugned judgment and decree dated

17.11.2008. Still not satisfied, the plaintiff-appellant has approached this Court by way of filing the instant appeal. In support of his appeal, learned counsel for the appellant has raised the following arguments:

1. That the service of the appellant was not terminated by a Competent Authority.

2. No opportunity of hearing was granted to the appellant in the enquiry proceedings on the basis of which termination order has been passed which is illegal and on acquittal in the criminal case, the appellant was entitled to reinstatement. On the basis of the aforesaid arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the following substantial questions of law arise in this appeal: “(i) Whether the appellant was entitled reinstatement in view of the judgment dated 24.12.1999 by which he was acquitted from the charges, which were RSA No.1116 of 2010 (O&M) 5 same to the charges of dismissal order vide dated

25.8.1993? (ii) Whether appellant was entitled to the arrears of salary and consequential benefits with interest? (iii) Whether the dismissal of the appellant vide order dated 25.8.1993 was against the service Rules? (iv) Whether the authority who has dismissed the appellant was having any authority according to rules for dismissal of the appellant? (v) Whether the judgments which were cited by the Ld. Counsel for the appellant were relied upon the case of the appellant? (vi) Whether the party not entering into the witness box to state his own case on oath and not offering himself to be cross examined by the other side then in view of the aforesaid facts a presumption would arise that the case set up by him is correct? (vii) Whether a manifest injustice has been done to the appellant?” In support of his case, learned counsel for the appellant has also relied upon judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as Capt. M.Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and another (1999) 3 SCC 679 and Punjab State and another v. Balwinder Singh, Ex. Head Constable 2001(3) RSJ 481. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment and decrees of the Courts below. It is well settled that while exercising its jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC, the Court cannot embark upon reappreciating the RSA No.1116 of 2010 (O&M) 6 evidence or weighing the same like an appellate authority. So long as there is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by the departmental authority, the same has to be sustained. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel AIR 1964 SC 364, the Constitution Bench held as under:- “The High Court can and must enquire whether there is any evidence at all in support of the impugned conclusion. In other words, if the whole of the evidence led in the enquiry is accepted as true, does the conclusion follow that the charge in question is proved against the respondent? This approach will avoid weighing the evidence. It will take the evidence as it stands and only examine whether on that evidence legally the impugned conclusion follows or not. As held in T.N.C.S. Corporation Ltd. v. K. Meerabai 2006 (2) SCC 255, the scope of judicial review for the Civil Court in departmental disciplinary matters is limited as strict rules of evidence are not applicable to departmental enquiry proceedings. The only requirement of law is that the allegation against the delinquent officer must be established by such evidence acting upon which a reasonable person acting reasonably and with objectivity may arrive at a finding upholding the gravamen of the charge against the delinquent officer. The Court exercising the jurisdiction of judicial review would not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the departmental enquiry proceedings excepting in a case of mala fide or perversity i.e. where there is no evidence to support a finding or where a finding is such that no man acting reasonably and with objectivity could have arrived at that findings. RSA No.1116 of 2010 (O&M) 7 In a number of cases including State Bank of India v. Bela Bagchi (2005) 7 SCC 435, the Apex has held that a bank employee has to exercise a higher degree of honesty and integrity. He is concerned with the deposits of the customers of the Bank and he cannot permit the deposits to be tinkered with in any manner. In Damoh Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank v. Munna Lal Jain (2005) 10 SCC 84, the Manager of a Bank who had indulged in unauthorized withdrawals, subsequently returned the amount with interest. Yet the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that this conduct of unauthorized withdrawals amounted to a serious misconduct. The case of the petitioner cannot be less grave in any manner. The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the appellant are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in this appeal. appeal. No substantial question of law, as argued, arises in this Dismissed. August 24, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE