- (1.) BHAGWATI Prasad, the petitioner before us, has approached this Court by filing writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground that he was appointed in the year 1976 and confirmed in November, 1986; he was suspended on certain charges in October 1996; charge-sheet was issued in August 1997; in defence petitioner submitted a detailed reply; Enquiry Officer submitted his report in November 1998; a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner in January 2000, petitioner submitted reply in April 2000, and again a written representation dated 8-8-2000; and finally he was dismissed from service vide impugned order dated March 30, 2001 (Annexure-15 to the petition ). The respondents in spite of notice did not file counter-affidavit.
(2.) EARLIER this petition was shown in the cause list on 5-5-2003 and this Court decided aforesaid writ petition vide judgment and order dated 5-5-2003. The Bench, while considering the petition, found that none of the charges was proved and with respect to charge No. 2 the material relating to irregularity in disbursement of loan to the agriculturists, the authority has recorded his impressions disbelieving the petitioner without giving any reason of referring the material on record. Besides it, this Court found that impugned order of dismissal dated March 30, 2001 (Annexure-15 to the writ petition), did not contain reasons and in absence of the same it did not reflect that concerned authority had applied its mind. For convenience we reproduce the relevant extract of our judgment and order dated 5-5-2003: "the enquiry report submitted by Regional Manager/enquiry Officer dated 25-11-1998 (Annexure-7 to the writ petition) shows that he has not been found guilty of charge No. 1 pertaining to misappropriation of certain sums in lieu of loans extended to certain persons towards papaya seeds. Charge No. 3 is regarding exploitation and atrocities on Scheduled Caste/scheduled Tribe persons and being guilty under the provisions of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. Charge No. 4 is regarding petitioner being involved in criminal cases. It may be noted here itself that petitioner has placed copy of the order dated May 1, 2002 passed by Special Judge SC/st Act to show that the petitioner was discharged for the offence under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. With regard to charge No. 5 that petitioner while discharging his duties tarnished the image of the Bank. He has been found guilty and without any cogent reason. Charge No. 2 is regarding irregularity in disbursement of loan to agriculturists. Without discussing the material on record, the authority has recorded its impressions and disbelieved the defence without giving reasons. The Enquiry Officer, however, did not find the petitioner guilty of collusion in disbursement and mis-appropriation of money. Over all enquiry report does not impress since there is no reference to the material on record or the evidence in possession of the employer for holding the petitioner guilty, even in part, of charge Nos. 2 and 5. The impugned order dated March 30, 2001 (Annexures-15 to the writ petition) by means of which petitioner has been dismissed from service shows that it contains no discussion or reason and hence there is nothing to reflect that the concerned authority had actually applied its mind. It may be noted that the impugned order (from pages 75 to 77 except last two paragraphs) contains history and narration of facts of the case. The last but two paragraphs contains no discussion or reason. The last two paragraphs contains punishment. The entire impugned order shows that reasons are conspicuously absent. In view of the above, it does not show that the authorities had actually applied their mind and it is not possible to find out as to on what basis and as to why the explanation submitted by the petitioner has not been accepted and on the other hand, what is the matter on which the disciplinary authority has arrived at that conclusion. The impugned order dated March 30, 2001 is in nullity and hence cannot be sustained. In the result, the impugned order dated 30-3-2001 (Annexure-15 to the writ petition) is hereby quashed with a direction to the respondents to pay petitioner's monthly salary forthwith and shall also to continue paying his future salary in accordance with law. The petition stands allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. " The respondent Bank not being satisfied with the aforesaid judgment and order, filed Special Leave Petition (C) No. 17655 of 2003, U. P. Co-operative Land Development Bank Ltd. v. Bhagwati Prasad & Ors. , before Supreme Court which allowed the same (copy of the order is on record and attached with order-sheet ). For convenience we reproduce the said judgment and order dated 18-2-2005 passed by the Supreme Court: "heard petitioner's Counsel and the Counsel for the respondents. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the High Court disposed of the matter without hearing the petitioner's Counsel. This fact is denied by the Counsel preferred for the respondents. However, the impugned order shows that the petitioner's Counsel alone was heard. Counsel for the petitioner's bank was changed but the name of the new Counsel was not found in the list because of some mistake which has crept in. This matter relates to the disciplinary proceedings in respect of the respondents. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court. The writ petition filed before the High Court would stand restored to the file and shall be considered afresh by the High Court. We request the High Court to dispose of the matter afresh in accordance with law. The Counsel for the petitioner is directed to pay costs of Rs. 10,000/-to the respondent's Counsel within four weeks from today. Accordingly, the SLP is disposed of. " In compliance of the aforesaid order, present petition has again been listed for hearing. When this writ petition was taken up for hearing, it transpired that the Vakalatnama filed by Sri Q. H. Siddiqui Advocate (of the Bank) had certain over-writing on date (vital in case) and some interpolations (in different ink with regard to Counsel's signature and Enrolment Number ). On the above, the learned Counsel, Shri K. N. Mishra Advocate, was required to produce paper book of S. L. P. on record. In turn copy of synopsis of list and date alongwith S. L. P. Paper Book of the Supreme Court was placed on record. Relevant extract of the date and Synopsis from the S. L. P. Paper-Book is quoted below: "8-4-2003 Sri Qazi Qamrul Hasan Siddiqui was appointed as new Counsel for the Bank and he filed his Vakalatnama. On behalf of the Bank he was also given necessary comments/instructions and also relevant documents to prepare and file counter-affidavit on behalf of the Bank and also to appear and defend the Bank on all dates of hearing in the matter before the High Court. Though the counter-affidavit was prepared by the Counsel for the Bank, the same could not be filed. In the counter-affidavit it was clearly made out that the dismissal order was wholly correct and the writ petition filed by the respondent deserves to be dismissed. " "5-5-2003 Writ petition was listed for final hearing on 5-5-2003. However, the name of the new Counsel Shri Siddiqui for the Bank was not mentioned in the cause list and, therefore, the Counsel missed the case and could not attend the Court when the matter was called up for hearing. True copy of the cause list dated 5-5-2003 is filed herewith and marked as Annexure P-14. "
(3.) INTERESTINGLY a vague and passing reference is made-regarding filing of Vakalatnama. There is no categorical averment as to on what exact date said Vakalatnama was filed in the High Court Registry. The above back-ground, was naturally, to give rise to suspicion. To probe, we passed order dated 18-11-2005 which is reproduced: "the application praying for condoning delay and accepting counter-affidavit contain no reason/explanation worth the salt. Learned Counsel for the contesting respondent referred to para 2 of this application, which reads ". . . took some time in preparing parawise comments by consulting one table to another of the department. " Such an explanation made casually in a slip shod manner serve no purpose. Respondents have not stated as to when they had received notice of the pendency of writ petition by the concerned. Even the details of alleged processing the matter before filing of the counter-affidavit has not been disclosed. Initially respondent No. 3 represented by Km. Seema Shukla who had stated as per order-sheet dated 10-3-2003 that she was no longer the Counsel of the said respondents and Court was pleased to direct for issuing notice to the respondents which was sent to them on 22-3-2003. One Sri Q. H. Siddiqui, Advocate, had filed his Vakalatnama on 18-3-2003 (but Vakalatnama signed by witnesses on 28-3-2003 as per endorsement on the top of the extreme left side of the Vakalatnama dated 5-5-2003 ). The said Vakalatnama has been signed by Surendra, Managing Director, U. P. Co-operative Land Development Bank, Lucknow. Normally it is expected that counter-affidavit should have been filed by Km. Seema Shukla, Advocate and/or Sri Q. H. Siddiqui, Advocate as required under Chapter XXII Rule 4, Rules of Court (as amended uptodate ). Relevant extract of which reads: ". . . . . . . . . . . Unless otherwise ordered, the counter-affidavit shall be filed not more than three weeks after the service of notice and the rejoinder thereto shall be filed not more than two weeks after the service of the copy of such counter-affidavit on the applicant. " We also note that no interim order was granted to the petitioner, who had approached this Court being aggrieved against impugned order dated 30-3-2001 by means of which he was dismissed from service of the respondent bank. Delay in hearing of the case apparently was to be advantage of the bank. We do not appreciate this kind of litigation at the instance of the respondent, which is a bank since it amounts to abuse of process of Court and undue harassment of its employee/petitioner. Delay in filing counter-affidavit is, however, allowed in the interest of justice subject, however, to the payment of cost Rs. 2,500/- (Rupees Two thousand Five hundred only) to the petitioner. Since writ petition is already listed for hearing before the Bench nominated by Hon'ble the Chief Justice/senior Judge, we proceed to decide the case particularly in view of the fact no objection has been filed by the petitioner against the said application for condoning delay in filing of counter-affidavit and also the rejoinder affidavit in reply to the counter of the contesting respondents has also been filed. ";