Arun Shrivastava vs Raigarh Regional Rural Bank and Another

Satish K. Agnihotri, J.—The petitioner seeks quashing of (Annexure P/29) dated 26.12.1989 which is a memo of appeal filed by the petitioner before the appellate authority i.e., the Board of Directors. The memo of appeal cannot be challenged as the same is neither prejudicial to the petitioner nor is an order passed by some authority. Why, the petitioner has challenged the validity of his own memo of appeal, is beyond one''s apprehension. Thus, challenge in respect to Annexure P/29, is rejected. Further challenge is to the order dated 27.11.1989 (Annexure P/32) whereunder, the petitioner was demoted from the post of Branch Manager to Area Supervisor, and the order dated 22.06.1990 (Annexure P/31) passed by the Board of Directors, rejecting the appeal of the petitioner against the order dated 27.11.1989 (Annexure P/32).

The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner, while working as Branch Manager at Bandarkuwa, during the period July 1986 to March, 1988, for certain acts of commission and omission, was placed under suspension by order dated 18.03.1988 in exercise of power under clause 4 of the Regulation, 30(4) of the Raigarh Kshetriya Gramin Bank Karmachari Vrind Sewa Viniyam (for short ''The Regulation''). The petitioner was served with a charge sheet dated 23.07.1988 (Annexure P/6). A preliminary enquiry was also held by the respondent authorities and thereafter, a full fledged enquiry was held, which resulted into passing of the impugned order demoting the petitioner from the post of Branch Manager to Area Supervisor. There against, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the appellate authority i.e., the Board of Directors, which was also dismissed affirming, the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority.

Shri Deshmukh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that after completion of the departmental enquiry, before imposing penalty of reduction of his post, a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 11.09.1989 (Annexure P/24) giving 15 days time to put forward his case. However, before completion of 15 days, the impugned order dated 11.09.1989 (Annexure P/25) was passed on the same date, thus, the principles of natural justice was not followed. Shri Deshmukh further submits that the decision of the Board of Directors, whereby the appeal of the petitioner was rejected, is prejudicial as the one of the member of the Board of Directors, was the Disciplinary Authority, who has passed the impugned order of demotion.

On the other hand, Shri Verma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that there is no illegality or irregularity in the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority i.e., the Board of Directors. The departmental enquiry was conducted in a fair manner providing full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner to put forward his case. Thus, there may be no interference with the orders impugned herein.

Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto.

The petitioner was placed under suspension for the alleged misconduct as stated in the charge sheet dated 23.07.1988. After completion of the departmental enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority, agreed with the enquiry report wherein charge Nos. 1, 4, 5, 6 and 7 was found fully proved. Thereafter, a notice was issued on 11.09.1989 (Annexure P/24) to the petitioner to show cause as to why he should not be imposed with some penalty. As the second page of notice dated 11.09.1989 (Annexure P/24), it is not available with the petition, it is difficult to ascertain as to whether there was some thing more against the petitioner in that document. In the said notice, 15 days time was granted to the petitioner to respond to the same.

The contention of the petitioner that without waiting for 15 days, the respondent authorities have passed the order of reduction to lower post, is misplaced as on that date i.e. 11.09.1989 (Annexure P/25) only the order of suspension was revoked, and temporarily, the petitioner was directed to join the post of Area Supervisor at Branch Bonda. Thereafter, the final order of demotion from the post of Branch Manager, to Area Supervisor was passed on 27.1.1989 (Annexure/32), much after the period granted for submission of the reply.

Further, on perusal of the proceedings of the Board of Directors (Annexure P/31), it is found that the Disciplinary Authority namely G.S. Karandikar, President of the Board of Directors and the Disciplinary Authority, walked out of the proceedings and the Collector, Raigarh, Shri J.P. Rai was appointed as Chairman of the Board. Thus, the question of influencing the dated 22.06.1990 (Annexure P/31), is misplaced and without any substance.

The petitioner does not challenge the legality and validity of the order dated 27.11.1989 (Annexure P/32) on any other ground, i.e., the departmental enquiry was perverse, illegal or contrary to the well settled principles of law. It is also not the case of the petitioner that proper opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the petitioner during enquiry. In view of such facts, this Court cannot sit as an appellate court to examine each and every facts of the case where there is no specific allegation against the process of enquiry. The decision of the Disciplinary Authority as well as the appellate order passed by Board of Directors, is not flawed. I have carefully examined the enquiry report and I find that there is no infirmity or illegality warranting interference.

In view of the foregoing and for the reasons stated hereinabove, this petition, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed.

However, the petitioner would be entitled to payment of the post of Branch Manager, till he was formally awarded the punishment demoting him to the post of Supervisor on 27.11.1989 (Annexure P/32). No order as to costs.