Anil Gilurker vs Bilaspur Raipur Kshetria Gramin Bank and Another

Anil Gilurker ... Appellant

Versus

Bilaspur Raipur Kshetria Gramin Bank

& Anr. ... Respondents

O R D E R

A. K. PATNAIK, J.

Leave granted.

2. These are appeals against the order dated 28.04.2010

of the Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court

in Writ Appeal No.57 of 2010 and Writ Appeal No.82 of

2010.

3. The facts very briefly are that on 03.05.1984 the

appellant was appointed as a Branch Manager in the

Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank by way of

direct recruitment and he successfully completed the

period of probation. While he was working on the post

2

of Branch Manager in Branch Patewa, he sanctioned

and distributed loans to a large number of brick

manufacturing units under the Integrated Gram

Development Programme. The disciplinary authority

placed the appellant under suspension and issued a

charge-sheet dated 31.01.1989 against him for

misconduct punishable under Regulation 30(1) of the

Staff Service Regulations. In the charge-sheet, it was

alleged that the appellant sanctioned and distributed

loans to a large number of brick manufacturing units

in a very short period of time, but had not in fact

disbursed the entire loan amount to the borrowers and

part of the loan amount was misappropriated by him.

The appellant was asked to submit his written defence

in reply to the charges. On 11.02.1989, the appellant

submitted his written defence denying the allegations

made in the charge-sheet. An Inquiry Officer enquired

into the charges against the appellant and submitted

his report with a finding that the witnesses produced

by the Bank had not said that what was actually

advanced was less than the loan amount, and

3

although there were some serious irregularities, the

charge of financial corruption against the appellant

had not been proved. The disciplinary authority in his

order dated 10.09.1991 disagreed with the findings of

the Inquiry Officer and held that the charge of financial

corruption against the appellant had been proved and

that the appellant had not only violated the Rules of

the Bank, but had also tried to cause financial loss to

the Bank and by abusing his position, had lowered

down the reputation of the Bank. In the order dated

10.09.1991, the disciplinary authority proposed to

impose the punishment of removal of the appellant

along with forfeiture of the contribution of the Bank to

the Provident Fund of the appellant under Section

50(1) of the Staff Regulations. By the order dated

10.09.1991, the disciplinary authority directed that a

copy of the order and report of the Inquiry Officer be

sent to the appellant to show-cause why he should not

be punished as proposed. On 18.09.1991, the

appellant submitted his reply to the show-cause notice

and on 25.11.1991, the disciplinary authority passed

4

the order of removal. Aggrieved, the appellant filed an

appeal against the order of the disciplinary authority,

but the appeal was dismissed by the appellate

authority.

4. The appellant then filed a Writ Petition before the

Madhya Pradesh High Court challenging the order of

removal passed by the disciplinary authority. After the

reorganization of the Madhya Pradesh in the year

2000, the Writ Petition was transferred to the

Chhattisgarh High Court and was heard by a learned

Single Judge of the Chhattisgarh High Court. The

learned Single Judge in his judgment dated

22.02.2010 found that in the charge-sheet, there is no

reference to any specific documents or to the names of

the persons who had not been given the loan amounts

and accordingly took the view that in the charge-sheet

there were no specific charges. Relying on the

decisions of this Court in Surath Chandra Chakrabarty

v. State of West Bengal [(1970) 3 SCC 548], Sawai

Singh v. State of Rajasthan [(1986) 3 SCC 454] and

Union of India & Ors. v. Gyan Chand Chattar [(2009) 12

5

SCC 78], the learned Single Judge held that when the

charges levelled against the delinquent officer in the

charge-sheet were vague and not specific and the

entire enquiry is vitiated. The learned Single Judge

quashed the orders of the disciplinary authority and

the appellate authority and directed reinstatement of

the appellant in service with continuity in service and

without loss of seniority in the post to which he would

be entitled to. The learned Single Judge further

directed that the appellant will be entitled to

compensation of Rs.1.5 lacs in lieu of arrears of his

salary.

5. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge

granting only Rs.1.5 lacs as compensation in lieu of

arrears of salary, the appellant filed Writ Appeal No.57

of 2010 and aggrieved by the impugned order of

learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition quashing the

orders of the disciplinary authority and the appellate

authority, the respondents filed Writ Appeal No.82 of

2010. After hearing the Writ Appeals, the Division

Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court held in the

6

impugned order that the charges against the appellant

as described in the charge-sheet were not vague as on

the basis of documents mentioned in the charge-sheet,

it has been alleged that the appellant had sanctioned

the loans and had shown the loans only on paper but

had not actually disbursed the loans to the borrowers.

The Division Bench of the High Court, however, held

that as the disciplinary authority had disagreed with

the findings in the inquiry report, he should have

furnished his reasons for the disagreement to the

appellant before passing the order of punishment. The

Division Bench of the High Court further held that the

disciplinary authority cannot conduct further enquiry

suo motu to fill up the lacuna in the enquiry. The

Division Bench of the High Court allowed both the

appeals and directed that the disciplinary authority

will consider the inquiry report, the evidence recorded

by the Enquiry Officer and the documents relied upon

in the charge-sheet and take a fresh decision in

accordance with law. The Division Bench of the High

Court further observed in the impugned order that if

7

the disciplinary authority takes a view on

reconsideration of the matter not to take any further

action against the appellant, he shall be given all the

consequential benefits along with reinstatement.

6. We have heard Mr. Ravindra Shrivastava, learned

counsel for the appellant and Mr. Akshat Shrivastava,

learned counsel for the respondents, and we are of the

considered opinion that the Division Bench of the High

Court was not correct in taking a view in the impugned

order that the charges against the appellant were not

vague. The English translation of the charges and the

statement of imputations extracted from the charge-

sheet dated 31.01.1989 served on the appellant is

reproduced hereinbelow:

Charge Sheet No. D/A/756 dated 31.1.89

Statement of imputations Charge

While working as Branch Tempted with his malafide

Manager in Branch Patewa, intention serious violation of

in the first quarter of the the Rules and interests of the

year 1988, have sanctioned Bank and Administration, in

and distributed loan of brick a very short period of time

manufacturing in large sanction the loan of Brick

number under the Integrated manufacturing in large scale

Gram Development under the "I. Gram. Dev.

Programme by committing Prog." And distributed and in

unauthorized irregularities most of the loan cases,

contrary to the rules and without actually distribution

8

interest of the bank and of the entire loan amount,

administration. In most of you have completed the

these loan cases you have documentary proceedings,

shown cash distribution of and showing the cash

the entire loan and has given distribution of the entire loan

only one minor part of the amount, only a minor share

loan amount to the Borrower of the loan has been given

in cash and from the balance cash to the concerned

amount, some amount has borrower and from the

been deposited in their remaining amount some

saving accounts (deducting amount has been deposited

contribution amount in the account of the

equivalent to the amount for borrower and the balance

closing the loan account) and amount in connivance with

the remaining amount has other persons have been

been grabbed by you, branch grabbed. With the intention

employees and in collusions to cover up your this act,

with the Gram Sewaks. After only after a few time of the

a very little time adjusting loan distribution, you have

the contribution amount in withdrawn the amount from

these loan accounts, you the saving accounts of the

have withdrawn the amount concerned borrowers and

from the Saving Accounts of most of the accounts have

the concerned borrowers, been closed before time. As

you have closed most of the such for the fulfillment of

loan accounts much before your personal gain you have

the time fixed for the deliberately misused the

repayment. position of your post and has

committed financial

corruption in large scale.

From which cause serious

shock the interests of the

bank administration and the

borrower also, the reputation

of the bank has also been

lowered down. Your this act

is a misconduct under

Sections 17, 19 and 30(1) of

the Employees Collection

Service Regulations.

9

7. A plain reading of the charges and the statement of

imputations reproduced above would show that only

vague allegations were made against the appellant that

he had sanctioned loans to a large number of brick

manufacturing units by committing irregularities, but

did not disburse the entire loan amount to the

borrowers and while a portion of the loan amount was

deposited in the account of the borrowers, the balance

was misappropriated by him and others. The details of

the loan accounts or the names of the borrowers have

not been mentioned in the charges. The amounts of

loan which were sanctioned and the amounts which

were actually disbursed to the borrowers and the

amounts alleged to have been misappropriated by the

appellant have not been mentioned.

8. We also find that along with the charge-sheet dated

31.01.1989 no statement of imputations giving the

particulars of the loan accounts or the names of the

borrowers, the amounts of loans sanctioned, disbursed

and misappropriated were furnished to the appellant,

and yet the disciplinary authority has called upon the

10

appellant to submit his written defence statement in

reply to the charges. We fail to appreciate how the

appellant could have submitted his written statement

in defence in respect of the charges and how a fair

enquiry could be held unless he was furnished with

the particulars of the loan accounts or the names of

the borrowers, the amounts of loan sanctioned, the

amounts actually disbursed and the amounts

misappropriated were also furnished in the charge-

sheet.

9. As has been held by this Court in Surath Chandra

Chakrabarty v. State of West Bengal (supra):

"5. .....The grounds on which it is proposed to

take action have to be reduced to the form of a

definite charge or charges which have to be

communicated to the person charged together

with a statement of the allegations on which

each charge is based and any other

circumstance which it is proposed to be taken

into consideration in passing orders has also

to be stated. This rule embodies a principle

which is one of the basic contents of a

reasonable or adequate opportunity for

defending oneself. If a person is not told

clearly and definitely what the allegations are

on which the charges preferred against him

are founded he cannot possibly, by projecting

his own imagination, discover all the facts and

circumstances that may be in the

11

contemplation of the authorities to be

established against him....."

10. This position of law has been reiterated in the recent

case of Union of India & Ors. v. Gyan Chand Chattar

(supra) and in Para 35 of the judgment as reported in

the SCC, this Court has observed that the law can be

summarized that an enquiry is to be conducted against

any person giving strict adherence to the statutory

provisions and principles of natural justice and the

charges should be specific, definite and giving details

of the incident which formed the basis of charges and

no enquiry can be sustained on vague charges.

11. We, therefore, allow these appeals, set aside the

impugned order of the Division Bench and restore the

order of the learned Single Judge. Considering the

peculiar facts and circumstances, we delete the

direction of the learned Single Judge to pay Rs.1.5 lacs

to the appellant as compensation in lieu of arrears of

salary and we are also not inclined to grant any

backwages to the appellant. There shall be no order as

to costs.

12 .............................J.

(R. V. Raveendran)

.............................J.

(A. K. Patnaik)

New Delhi,

September 15, 2011.