Sushil Kumar Pandey v. Devi Patan Kshetriya Gramin Bank and others

1. Heard Shri Anand Mani Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Virendra Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent Bank.

2. This special appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 21.8.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.6411(S/S) of 2004 (Sushil Kumar Pandey Vs. Devi Patan Kshetriya Gramin Bank and others.

3. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant was that the appeal of the appellant against the order of dismissal was decided in a cursory and non speaking manner without proper application of mind. He has invited our attention to the document annexed as Annexure No.2 dated 19.7.2004 in this regard. He says that apart from this, no other decision or order was furnished to the appellant as having been taken or passed by the Board of Directors of the respondent Bank while deciding the appellant's appeal.

4. On being confronted, Shri Virendra Mishra learned counsel for the 2 SPLA No. 120 of 2015 respondent Bank submitted that this appears to be merely a communication of the decision but the decision itself is not on record. However, on being asked as to why, if it is so, the decision or order which may have been passed in appeal was not brought on record of the writ court where counter affidavit was filed by the respondent Bank, he submitted that this was not the plea taken in the writ petition.

5. In response, learned counsel for the appellant has invited our attention to paragraph 17 of the writ petition, which reads as under :- "17. That vide letter dated 19.7.2004, of the Chairman of the Bank, the petitioner was communicated that his appeal has been rejected by the Board of Directors in its meeting no.3/04, dated 14.7.2004. A bare perusal of the letter shows that appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed without application of mind and without assigning any reason, whatsoever, in the most arbitrary and illegal manner. A photocopy of the letter dated 19.07.2004 has already been filed as Annexure No.2 to this writ petition.”

6. Contention of Shri Virendra Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent Bank is not correct as specific pleading was there in paragraph 17 of the writ petition that the decision in the appeal was without application of mind and without assigning any reason whatsoever in a most arbitrary and illegal manner.

7. In response to it, respondent Bank has filed counter affidavit wherein in paragraph 9, reply to paragraph 17 of the writ petition was made, which reads as under :- "9. That the contents of paragraph 17 of the writ petition are admitted only to the extent that the appellate authority has rejected 3 SPLA No. 120 of 2015 the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of punishment, which was communicated to the petitioner by the respondent Bank vide letter dated 19.7.2004 rest of the contents of paragraph 17 are denied. It is categorically and specifically denied that the appellate authority rejected the appeal without application of mind and the averments made to this effect are wholly misconceived, baseless and have been purposely made so as to give colour to the matter. In fact, the appellate authority duly considered the matter and all the material/ record/ evidence available, while rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner."

8. Apart from it, no order or decision passed or taken by the Board of Directors containing a consideration of the grounds on which the dismissal order was sought to challenged in appeal and the reasons for not accepting the grounds was filed alongwith the counter affidavit. The appeal itself was filed in the year 2015 albeit belatedly and the delay in this regard was condoned in the year 2018. Seven years have passed since then. If there was any decision other than the one annexed as Annexure No.2, then it should have been brought on record. In this view of the matter, we reject the contention of Shri Mishra that there is some other decision as the circumstances do not indicate towards it nor does the conduct of the respondent Bank.

9. In this context, we have perused the impugned judgement. We find that the learned Single Judge relied upon paragraphs 23,25 and 31 of the judgement of the Division Bench of this Court reported in Dr. Bishambhar Dayal Gupta Vs. The Visitor/ President of India : 2006(1) AWC 608 to repel the plea regarding the appellate order 4 SPLA No. 120 of 2015 being an un-reasoned order by observing that the appeal was to be considered by the Board of Directors and there was no such provision in the Regulations requiring the Board of Directors to pass a detailed reasoned order. In absence of any such provision, the collective decision taken by a body could not be assailed on the ground that the decision of such collective body communicated to the concerned employee is not a speaking and reasoned order where a decision is to be taken by a collective body of the institution. Whether at the first stage or at the appellate stage as the case may be, it is common intention expressed by all those persons constituting the body which reflects the ultimate decision which has taken by a body and in such circumstances the requirement of an individual reason to be given by them is neither possible, nor permissible nor required unless it is specifically provided in the statute. With respect, we do not agree with this reasoning at all. It is based on misapplication of the observations contained in the decision rendered in the case of Dr. Bishambhar Dayal Gupta (supra). The case at hand is not one where the appellant contended that each member of the Board of Directors should have expressed his/her separate opinion. The case of the appellant is that there is no decision expressed at all and in fact there is no decision which necessarily has to be preceded by the consideration of the ground of appeal.

10. We have also perused the document dated 19.7.2004 which merely informed the appellant that in the meeting no.3/04 dated

14.7.2004, the appeal was considered by the Board of Directors and has been rejected. This can hardly be termed as a decision on a statutory appeal against an order of dismissal. Learned Single Judge 5 SPLA No. 120 of 2015 has clearly erred and misdirected himself by being persuaded by certain observations made in the case of Dr. Bhishambhar Dayal Gupa (supra). Even if a decision is to be taken by a collective body such as the Board of Directors, though each member of the Board need not express his/her opinion separately. At least the opinion or decision of the Board should be there which should necessarily contain a brief narration of facts, the grounds on which the order of dismissal was sought to be challenged in appeal, its consideration by the Board and the reasons for acceptance or non acceptance of the ground followed by the conclusion whether the appeal was allowed or rejected. There is nothing on record to suggest any such consideration. The judgement of the learned Single Judge to this extent is erroneous.

11. Other grounds have been considered by the writ court one of which was the demand of documents by the appellant. We asked the appellant's counsel to demonstrate that this was the ground taken in departmental appeal but he could not do so, therefore, to this extent, the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted i.e. to the extent he has said that this ground not having been raised in appeal nor before the inquiry officer is not open to the petitioner for being raised before the writ court. Moreover, the learned Single Judge has also recorded a finding that no prejudice could be shown by the appellant/petitioner by non furnishing of such document which was also a relevant consideration, therefore, on this score, we are not inclined to interfere with the judgement of the learned Single Judge.

12. The other ground considered by the learned Single Judge was 6 SPLA No. 120 of 2015 as to the seriousness of the charges. No doubt the charges were serious but whether they were proved or not was an issue which was raised in the appeal but not decided, therefore, this issue is still open for consideration in the departmental appeal as we propose to set aside the judgement of the learned Single Judge to the extent it has held that the appeal was decided by a reasoned order, with a direction to the Board of Directors to consider and decide the appeal afresh, in accordance with law keeping in mind the observations made here-in-above.

13. The appeal is partly allowed. Order dated 21.8.2014 passed by learned Single Judge insofar as it relates to the dismissal of the writ petition is set aside. The order dated 19.7.2004 communicating the decision on appeal is hereby quashed as it is no decision in the eyes of law. The appeal shall stand revived and be considered and decided afresh by the Board of Directors, at the earliest say within a period of four months keeping in mind what has been stated here-in- above. All other pleas taken in the appeal, would be considered by the Board of Directors, alongwith such other pleas which may be relevant. The question of quantum of punishment shall also be open for consideration by the Board of Directors in the appeal uninfluenced by the observations made by the writ court as the correctness of the charges and the findings of the inquiry officer are under challenge in appeal, therefore, the observations of the learned Single Judge would not influence the Board of Directors in this regard. The observations of the learned Single Judge only with regard to non furnishing of documents shall be binding on the appellate authority meaning thereby this aspect shall not be reconsidered but all other aspects 7 SPLA No. 120 of 2015 shall be open for consideration. October 14, 2025 Shukla (Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) ASHUTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Shri Anand Mani Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Virendra Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent Bank.

2. This special appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 21.8.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.6411(S/S) of 2004 (Sushil Kumar Pandey Vs. Devi Patan Kshetriya Gramin Bank and others.

3. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant was that the appeal of the appellant against the order of dismissal was decided in a cursory and non speaking manner without proper application of mind. He has invited our attention to the document annexed as Annexure No.2 dated 19.7.2004 in this regard. He says that apart from this, no other decision or order was furnished to the appellant as having been taken or passed by the Board of Directors of the respondent Bank while deciding the appellant's appeal.

4. On being confronted, Shri Virendra Mishra learned counsel for the 2 SPLA No. 120 of 2015 respondent Bank submitted that this appears to be merely a communication of the decision but the decision itself is not on record. However, on being asked as to why, if it is so, the decision or order which may have been passed in appeal was not brought on record of the writ court where counter affidavit was filed by the respondent Bank, he submitted that this was not the plea taken in the writ petition.

5. In response, learned counsel for the appellant has invited our attention to paragraph 17 of the writ petition, which reads as under :- "17. That vide letter dated 19.7.2004, of the Chairman of the Bank, the petitioner was communicated that his appeal has been rejected by the Board of Directors in its meeting no.3/04, dated 14.7.2004. A bare perusal of the letter shows that appeal of the petitioner has been dismissed without application of mind and without assigning any reason, whatsoever, in the most arbitrary and illegal manner. A photocopy of the letter dated 19.07.2004 has already been filed as Annexure No.2 to this writ petition.”

6. Contention of Shri Virendra Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent Bank is not correct as specific pleading was there in paragraph 17 of the writ petition that the decision in the appeal was without application of mind and without assigning any reason whatsoever in a most arbitrary and illegal manner.

7. In response to it, respondent Bank has filed counter affidavit wherein in paragraph 9, reply to paragraph 17 of the writ petition was made, which reads as under :- "9. That the contents of paragraph 17 of the writ petition are admitted only to the extent that the appellate authority has rejected 3 SPLA No. 120 of 2015 the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the order of punishment, which was communicated to the petitioner by the respondent Bank vide letter dated 19.7.2004 rest of the contents of paragraph 17 are denied. It is categorically and specifically denied that the appellate authority rejected the appeal without application of mind and the averments made to this effect are wholly misconceived, baseless and have been purposely made so as to give colour to the matter. In fact, the appellate authority duly considered the matter and all the material/ record/ evidence available, while rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner."

8. Apart from it, no order or decision passed or taken by the Board of Directors containing a consideration of the grounds on which the dismissal order was sought to challenged in appeal and the reasons for not accepting the grounds was filed alongwith the counter affidavit. The appeal itself was filed in the year 2015 albeit belatedly and the delay in this regard was condoned in the year 2018. Seven years have passed since then. If there was any decision other than the one annexed as Annexure No.2, then it should have been brought on record. In this view of the matter, we reject the contention of Shri Mishra that there is some other decision as the circumstances do not indicate towards it nor does the conduct of the respondent Bank.

9. In this context, we have perused the impugned judgement. We find that the learned Single Judge relied upon paragraphs 23,25 and 31 of the judgement of the Division Bench of this Court reported in Dr. Bishambhar Dayal Gupta Vs. The Visitor/ President of India : 2006(1) AWC 608 to repel the plea regarding the appellate order 4 SPLA No. 120 of 2015 being an un-reasoned order by observing that the appeal was to be considered by the Board of Directors and there was no such provision in the Regulations requiring the Board of Directors to pass a detailed reasoned order. In absence of any such provision, the collective decision taken by a body could not be assailed on the ground that the decision of such collective body communicated to the concerned employee is not a speaking and reasoned order where a decision is to be taken by a collective body of the institution. Whether at the first stage or at the appellate stage as the case may be, it is common intention expressed by all those persons constituting the body which reflects the ultimate decision which has taken by a body and in such circumstances the requirement of an individual reason to be given by them is neither possible, nor permissible nor required unless it is specifically provided in the statute. With respect, we do not agree with this reasoning at all. It is based on misapplication of the observations contained in the decision rendered in the case of Dr. Bishambhar Dayal Gupta (supra). The case at hand is not one where the appellant contended that each member of the Board of Directors should have expressed his/her separate opinion. The case of the appellant is that there is no decision expressed at all and in fact there is no decision which necessarily has to be preceded by the consideration of the ground of appeal.

10. We have also perused the document dated 19.7.2004 which merely informed the appellant that in the meeting no.3/04 dated

14.7.2004, the appeal was considered by the Board of Directors and has been rejected. This can hardly be termed as a decision on a statutory appeal against an order of dismissal. Learned Single Judge 5 SPLA No. 120 of 2015 has clearly erred and misdirected himself by being persuaded by certain observations made in the case of Dr. Bhishambhar Dayal Gupa (supra). Even if a decision is to be taken by a collective body such as the Board of Directors, though each member of the Board need not express his/her opinion separately. At least the opinion or decision of the Board should be there which should necessarily contain a brief narration of facts, the grounds on which the order of dismissal was sought to be challenged in appeal, its consideration by the Board and the reasons for acceptance or non acceptance of the ground followed by the conclusion whether the appeal was allowed or rejected. There is nothing on record to suggest any such consideration. The judgement of the learned Single Judge to this extent is erroneous.

11. Other grounds have been considered by the writ court one of which was the demand of documents by the appellant. We asked the appellant's counsel to demonstrate that this was the ground taken in departmental appeal but he could not do so, therefore, to this extent, the learned Single Judge cannot be faulted i.e. to the extent he has said that this ground not having been raised in appeal nor before the inquiry officer is not open to the petitioner for being raised before the writ court. Moreover, the learned Single Judge has also recorded a finding that no prejudice could be shown by the appellant/petitioner by non furnishing of such document which was also a relevant consideration, therefore, on this score, we are not inclined to interfere with the judgement of the learned Single Judge.

12. The other ground considered by the learned Single Judge was 6 SPLA No. 120 of 2015 as to the seriousness of the charges. No doubt the charges were serious but whether they were proved or not was an issue which was raised in the appeal but not decided, therefore, this issue is still open for consideration in the departmental appeal as we propose to set aside the judgement of the learned Single Judge to the extent it has held that the appeal was decided by a reasoned order, with a direction to the Board of Directors to consider and decide the appeal afresh, in accordance with law keeping in mind the observations made here-in-above.

13. The appeal is partly allowed. Order dated 21.8.2014 passed by learned Single Judge insofar as it relates to the dismissal of the writ petition is set aside. The order dated 19.7.2004 communicating the decision on appeal is hereby quashed as it is no decision in the eyes of law. The appeal shall stand revived and be considered and decided afresh by the Board of Directors, at the earliest say within a period of four months keeping in mind what has been stated here-in- above. All other pleas taken in the appeal, would be considered by the Board of Directors, alongwith such other pleas which may be relevant. The question of quantum of punishment shall also be open for consideration by the Board of Directors in the appeal uninfluenced by the observations made by the writ court as the correctness of the charges and the findings of the inquiry officer are under challenge in appeal, therefore, the observations of the learned Single Judge would not influence the Board of Directors in this regard. The observations of the learned Single Judge only with regard to non furnishing of documents shall be binding on the appellate authority meaning thereby this aspect shall not be reconsidered but all other aspects 7 SPLA No. 120 of 2015 shall be open for consideration. October 14, 2025 Shukla (Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) ASHUTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench