- (1.) UNDER challenge in this writ petition are the order dated 02nd April, 1993 whereby the penalty of stoppage of three grade increments with cumulative effect was imposed on the petitioner and the consequential order dated 10th November, 1993 passed by the Chairman of the respondent-Bank.
(2.) THE facts in brief are that the petitioner was initially appointed on the post of Clerk with the Ganganagar Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Sri Ganganagar (in short the respondent-Bank) . He was lastly promoted as Branch Manager in the year 1974. THE petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 05th April, 1990. THE respondent-Bank has adopted Rajasthan Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1958. A charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 02nd April, 1999 for initiating disciplinary proceedings against him. According to the petitioner, he submitted an application to the disciplinary authority on 08th May, 1990 demanding copies of certain documents. THE disciplinary authority by communication dated 04th June, 1990 supplied copies of some of the documents to the petitioner. However, for certain other documents it directed that the same are to be issued to the petitioner by the concerned Branch. THE respondents however did not supply to him copy of the inquiry report. THE Branch Manager also did not supply copies of the documents directed by the disciplinary authority. One Shri M. R. Bissu was appointed as inquiry officer in the case of the petitioner. THE petitioner vide his application dated 09th April, 1991 raised the objection on the ground that Shri M. R. Bissu was member of the same cadre to which the petitioner belonged and the inquiry officer should be appointed at least from one higher rank. Moreover, Shri M. R. Bissu had conducted the preliminary inquiry and therefore he should not be asked to hold final inquiry. THE Managing Director of the respondent Bank however by its letter dated 25th April, 1991 rejected prayer of the petitioner. THE inquiry against him was completed without supplying remaining documents and notice dated 05th June, 1999 was issued to the petitioner by the Managing Director of respondent Bank with which copy of the inquiry report was also furnished to him. THE petitioner submitted a representation to the inquiry officer on 04th July, 1992. He demanded personal hearing from the Chairman of the Bank. THE disciplinary authority by his order dated 02nd April, 1993 imposed a penalty of three grade increments upon the petitioner. THE petitioner submitted an appeal against the said order on 23rd April, 1993. He was however by communication dated 13th October, 1993 informed that the petitioner should file an appeal before the competent court, but it was not indicated as to who was competent to hear appeal. In compliance with the above order of penalty, the Chairman of the Bank by an order dated 10th October, 1993 directed stoppage of increments which became due to him on 09th February, 1991 and 09th February, 1993. It is with this back ground of the matter that the present writ petition has been filed with the prayer extracted above. The writ petition has been contested by the respondent Bank who in their reply has asserted that all the necessary documents were supplied to the petitioner and for remaining documents, he was asked to inspect the same. It has been submitted that so far as the preliminary inquiry is concerned, the same was conducted by the administrative officer whereas Mr. M. R. Bissu has been appointed as the inquiry officer for final inquiry. The preliminary inquiry was conducted by Shri G. S. Rajpurohit who was administrative officer and not by Mr. M. R. Bissu. It has been submitted that the petitioner has not indicated precisely by non-supply of which document prejudice was caused to him. The inquiry was conducted strictly in accordance with the Rules and there was no violation of the Rules in so far as the requirement of adherence to the procedure contained in CCA Rules is concerned. It is therefore prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. I have heard Mr. M. S. Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajesh Joshi, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record. Mr. M. S. Singhvi has argued that the order of penalty dated 02nd April, 1993 suffers from the vice of non-application of mind inasmuch as the disciplinary authority has omitted to consider the reply of the petitioner and his specific objection that Mr. M. R. Bissu who conducted the preliminary inquiry could not be appointed as inquiry officer. Moreover, the disciplinary authority has not applied his own mind independently to the charges and material on record and has rather singularly based his findings on the report of inquiry officer. It has been argued that finding of the disciplinary authority that bungling of Rs. 1,30 lacs could only be made on account of negligence on the part of the petitioner was totally perverse. He has argued that the petitioner has been penalized for others' negligence. It was duty of the Dy. Manager, Shri M. R. Dhoodhi to verify the signatures on the cheques and it was due to his fault that cheques were wrongly debited to the account of Agriculture Marketing Board. On the charge proved in the inquiry report, it has been submitted that merely because the petitioner granted permission to open account in the name of M/s Jyoti Construction Company, he could not be held responsible for further acts of the other employees. Mr. M. S. Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the inquiry has been initiated by an incompetent person. Reference in this connection has been made of Rule 15 of the CCA Rules, according to which it is only the disciplinary authority who is competent to issue a charge-sheet. The charge-sheet in the present matter was issued by the Managing Director. Demanded documents were not supplied to the petitioner, most vital of which was the report of the preliminary inquiry. Those documents were essential for the petitioner to defend himself in the inquiry. The inquiry officer was biased against the petitioner inasmuch as he had already earlier conducted the preliminary inquiry against the petitioner. Mr. M. R. Bissu was the member of the same cadre of which the petitioner was member and therefore this has also prejudiced the case of the petitioner because inquiry officer should be a higher officer at least in one stage. Findings have been recorded on the basis of conjectures and surmises. Findings on issue No. 1 and No. 2 are totally perverse and erroneous and bereft of any material. It has been argued that when the order of penalty was passed by the Chairman of the Board by making it effective retrospectively in that increments which became due on 09th February, 1991, 09th February 1992 and 09th February, 1993 have been illegally withheld.
(3.) MR. Singhvi has cited the cases of Ashok Kumar Yadav & Ors. vs. State of Haryana & Ors., reported in AIR 1987 SC 454, Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. vs. Girja Shanker Pant & Ors., reported in 2001 (1) SCC 182, Badrinath vs. Government of Tamil Nadu & Ors., reported in 2000 (8) SCC 395, Institute of Chartered Accountants of India vs. L. K. Ratna & Ors., reported in 1986 (4) SCC 537 and Baidyanath Mahapatra vs. State of Orissa & Ors., reported in AIR 1989 SC 2218. On the question of non-supply of document Shri Singhvi has relied upon the judgments in State of U. P. vs. Shatrughan Lal & Ors., reported in 1998 (6) SCC 651, Committee of Management, Kisan Degree College vs. Shambhu Sharan Pandey & Ors., reported in 1995 (1) JT 270 and Trilok Nath vs. Union of India reported in 1967 SLR 759. He has argued that while the petitioner has been found guilty of ignorance in granting permission to open an account in the name of M/s Jyoti Construction Company, yet the material witness namely Shri Vijay Kumar who was introducer of the aforesaid Company in opening the said account has not been examined. He in this connection relied on the judgment of Hardwari Lal vs. State of U. P. & Ors., reported in JT 1999 (8) SC 418. ;