AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Proceedings of this matter have been takenÂup through video conferencing.
With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is heard finally.
The petitioner was dismissed from service by order of the disciplinary authority dated 3.9.2004 (Annexure PÂ6) finding him guilty of grave
misconduct, against which, he preferred appeal under Regulation 31 of the Bilaspur Raipur Khetriya Gramin Bank Staff Service Regulations 1980
(hereinafter called as 'Regulations 1980') to the Board of Directors. The petitioner's appeal has been dismissed by the Board of Directors on
08.11.2006 and communicated to him vide order dated 14.12.2006 by the Chairman of the Bank. Feeling aggrieved against that order, the instant writ
petition has been preferred by the petitioner.
Ms Sharmila Shinghai, learned Senior Counsel with Mr.Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the appellate authority
has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner by nonÂspeaking and unreasoned order and even nothing has been communicated except communication
that his appeal has been dismissed, which is not proper way of deciding the appeal exercising quasiÂjudicial power of hearing the appeal under
Regulation 31 of the Regulations 1980, as such, the appellate order deserves to be set aside and the matter be remitted to the appellate authority for
hearing and disposal in accordance with law.
On the other hand, Mr.N.Naha Roy, learned counsel for the respondents, would support the impugned order.
I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records
with utmost circumspection.
Regulation 31, 32, 33 and 34 of the Regulations 1980 which governs disposal of appeal preferred by the appellant states as under:Â
“31. An officer or employee shall have a right of appeal against any order passed by an authority which injuriously affects his interest.
An appeal shall lieÂ
(a) In the case of an officer, to the Board,
(b) In the case of an employee, to the Chairman.
Every appeal shall comply with the following requirementsÂ
(a) It shall be in writing and couched in polite and respectful language and shall be free from unnecessary padding or superfluous verbiage,
(b) It shall contain all material statements and arguments relied on and shall be complete in itself,
(c) It shall specify the relief desired.
(d) It shall be preferred within one month of the date of the order against which the appeal is made.
Appeals shall not be addressed to Directors personally and any such action shall be deemed a breach of discipline.â€
A careful perusal of the aforesaid Regulation would show that Regulation does not provide the manner of consideration of the appeal, but since the
appellate authority exercised quasiÂjudicial power of hearing and disposing of the appeal, the appellate authority ought to have assigned the valid
reasons for rejecting the appeal and could have passed speaking order while dismissing the appeal meeting with the grounds raised by the petitioner as
the petitioner has raised several grounds in his appeal memo, but simply informing that his appeal has been dismissed is nothing but failure to exercise
the jurisdiction conferred by the Regulation Making Authority to the Board of Directors. The memo dated 14.12.2006 issued by the President of
Surguja Kshetriya Gramin Bank states as under:Â
It is well settled position of law that the appellate authority in disciplinary proceeding acts in quasi judicial capacity and order passed has to be
reasoned one and showing application of mind to the question raised by the appellant and if it is not done, the appellate order is vitiated. (See Divisional
Forest Officer, Kothagudem and others v. Madhusudhan Rao (2008) 3 SCC 469).
The Supreme Court reiterated this principle of law by observing that an appellate authority by deciding statutory appeal is not only required to give
hearing to the Government servant, but pass a reasoned order dealing with the contention raised in the appeal. (See Deokinandan Sharma v. Union of
India and others (2001) 5 SCC 340).
Even if the appellate order is in agreement with that of the disciplinary authority, it may not be speaking order, but the authority passing the same
must show that there had been proper application of mind in compliance with the requirement of law while exercising his jurisdiction particularly when
the rules required application of mind on several factors and several contentions had been raised and he was bound to assign reasons so as to enable
the Court reviewing its decision to ascertain as to whether he had applied his mind to the relevant factors which the rule required to do. (See Narinder
Mohan Arya v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and others (2006) 4 SCC 713).
Reverting to the facts of the present case, in the instant case, the appellate authority has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner by nonÂspeaking
and unreasoned order and even nothing has been communicated except communication that his appeal has been dismissed, which is not proper way of
deciding the appeal exercising quasiÂjudicial power of hearing the appeal under Regulation 31 of the Regulations 1980. The Board of Directors being
the highest authority of the Bank has to be fair to its employees and officers while dealing with the appeal. The Board of Directors has completely
failed to perform its duty reposed by the Regulations 1980 and in totally impermissible way, dismissed the appeal and communicated to the petitioner
that his appeal has been dismissed after due consideration.
Accordingly, the order dated 8.11.2006 communicated to the petitioner on 14.12.2006 by which the petitioner's appeal has been dismissed by the
appellate authority is hereby set aside. The matter is remitted to the appellate authority for hearing and disposal of the petitioner's appeal afresh in
accordance with law within 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order by reasoned and speaking order. The petitioner is liberty to make
additional representation / to file additional submission before the appellate authority.
The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. The petitioner would be entitled for cost of  Rs. 5000/ from the respondent
Bank.