- (1.) THE petitioner in writ petition No. 7212/1993 Rambabu, at the relevant time, was working as Field Supervisor whereas the petitioner in writ petition No. 2385/1998 Prabhu Dayal Gupta was working as Manager and eight charges of misappropriation were levelled against him, out of which one charge/allegation No. 8 was identical to the sole charge against Rambabu, petitioner in Writ Petition No. 7212/1993. THE petitioner Ram Babu Thathera has challenged the punishment order dated 31.1.1992 whereby he has been punished with stoppage of five annual grade increments with cumulative effect and Appellate Authority's order dated 13.8.1993 whereby appeal preferred by him was dismissed. Further on the basis of the reasoning given in the said punishment order dated 31.1.1992 of Ram Babu Thathera, in Writ Petition No. 2385/1998 petitioner P.D. Gupta has been exonerated of allegation No. 8 and he was punished in respect of another allegation No. 1 with stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect vide order dated 13.2.1999, which was challenged by way of amendment in the writ petition and the same was allowed. On account of the aforesaid common charge/allegation, both the writ petitions were tagged and heard together. Facts of Rambabu Thathera's case (Writ petition No. 7212/1993)
(2.) WHILE working as Field Supervisor, the petitioner was served with the charge sheet on 16.5.1990 levelling the charge that he committed certain acts which amounted to misconduct under Regulation 19 and 30 of the Jaipur Nagaur Aanchalik Gramin Bank (Staff) Service Regulations, 1981 (Amended 1982) (in short ``the REgulations) and the petitioner failed to serve the bank honestly and faithfully so much so that while working as Field Supervisor, he prepared a false pre-sanction report dated 19.6.1986 in respect of Smt. Shanti Devi w/o Cheetarmal Balai (Loan Account No. 1441) as borrower and got the loan sanctioned for Rs. 1600/- on 21.6.1986 in favour of the said borrower on the blank loan documents and pocketed the amount. The loan amount with interest was deposited on 30.9.1987 by Shri Thathera through Bajrang Lal S/o Shri Mohan Singh. Thus, the petitioner has violated/contravened Regulation 19 and 30 of the Regulations. The allegations upon which the above article of charge is based, have been given with the statement of allegations. In the statement of allegations main allegation is that Shri Thathera obtained thumb impression of Smt. Shanti Devi on the blank loan documents, debit vouchers and later on filled in/prepared the same in her name without conducting pre/post inspection visit. The loan amount of Rs. 1600/- was not paid either to borrower or to the reported seller. Middle part of statement of allegation is with regard to collusion of the petitioner with Shri P.D. Gupta in sanctioning and disbursing the loan to the alleged reported seller. Last part of the allegation is with regard to depositing the same by the petitioner through Shri Bajrang Lal Sarpanch on 30.9.87. The petitioner filed reply to the charge sheet and denied the allegation and further submitted that in respect of the same incident of sanction and disbursement of bogus loan in the name of fictitious borrower, CBI has conducted an enquiry for the offence under Section 420, 467, 477(A) IPC read with section 5(2) read with 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against the Branch Manager P.D. Gupta. During the course of investigation, the petitioner was also made co-accused, but negative final report was filed against all of them and the CBI has suggested the Bank to conduct the departmental enquiry. The petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 9.6.1988 and after two years, aforesaid charge sheet was served on 16.5.1990. During the course of enquiry, the petitioner has protested against the appointment of CBI Inspector as a Presenting Officer, but when the Bank declined to change him, the petitioner made a request for assistance of an Advocate as defence nominee. The said request was declined on 22.12.1990. Then again the petitioner made another request for appointment of Shri Mahesh Mishra as defence nominee on the ground that the Presenting Officer is well versed with the legal aspect of the matter and the petitioner being a simple Field Supervisor would not be able to defend himself, but the said request was also declined on 10.1.1991. The petitioner has further stated that since CBI Inspector was well versed with the legal technicalities and was further having experience in investigating and presenting the case, but the petitioner, who was simply a Field Supervisor was not having such kind of experience, therefore, declining request for appointment of Advocate as defence nominee and alternatively Mahesh Mishra, an employee of SBBJ, has seriously prejudiced his defence. The petitioner has also stated in the writ petition that he demanded at least 19 documents and only 6 documents have been supplied, which has resulted in denial of reasonable opportunity. The petitioner has nothing to do with sanction and disbursement of loan. Otherwise also, Ramavtar Singh was not produced as witness, so it cannot be concluded that no amount for sale of Baan Moonj was received by him. The petitioner has also submitted that the enquiry officer has given a finding that no false report was prepared by the petitioner and subsequently, it has come on record that other loan papers e.g. affidavit of Smt. Shanti Devi and receipts bears counter signature of the then Manager of the Branch of the Bank- P.D. Gupta, but the same neither bear any signature of the petitioner nor they were in his hand writing, but still the said aspect has not been considered and wrong presumption has been drawn by the disciplinary authority against the petitioner on the basis of wrong fact that the amount has been deposited by him with the further mention of the fact that unless someone has taken the loan, he will not deposit the same. Thus, the findings of the enquiry officer and disciplinary authority are perverse. Lastly, it was submitted that when one of the charges levelled against P.D. Gupta is identical to the petitioner then there was no reason to conduct two parallel enquiries and throw the entire burden on the petitioner and further after punishing him, Shri P.D. Gupta has been exonerated on the same charge by placing reliance on punishment order dated 31.1.1992, although the loan papers were signed by him, sanctioned by him and disbursed by him. The Bank has filed reply to the writ petition of Rambabu Thathera and stated that there was grave misconduct on the part of the petitioner in preparing false pre-sanction report in regard to disbursement of loan. It was stated in the charge sheet that the petitioner in collusion with Shri P.D. Gupta obtained signature of Shri Ramavtar Singh, a reported seller on the reverse of the Manager's cheque in token of having received the amount from the Bank against the goods (Baan Moonj) sold to Smt. Shanti Devi. It was further stated in the charge sheet that Smt. Shanti Devi neither obtained any loan from the Bank nor purchased Baan Moonj and simple deposit of money at the later stage does not dilute the allegation of misconduct or misappropriation. The request of the petitioner to permit him to engage an Advocate as a defence representative was turned down in accordance with Regulation No. 30(3) of the Regulations. It is also stated that relevant documents were supplied to him and non-supply of irrelevant documents has not caused any prejudice to the petitioner. The findings of the enquiry officer are based on record and as per finding, the charge is proved. The punishment order has rightly been passed and the appeal has rightly been dismissed. An objection has also been taken that this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has limited scope of judicial review of the orders passed by the disciplinary authority as well as appellate authority. The submission of counsel for the petitioner in Rambabu Thathera's case is that when the Bank decided to continue the CBI Inspector as Presenting Officer, who was well versed with the investigation/enquiry proceedings then there was no justification for declining the request of the petitioner for appointment of an Advocate as defence nominee vide order dated 22.12.1990 and subsequent request of allowing Mahesh Mishra, an employee of SBBJ as defence nominee, which was made by the petitioner as he was not acquainted with the procedure of the enquiry being a Field Supervisor, who can be equated with layman in such matter. Further submission of counsel for the petitioner is that denial of 13 documents has seriously prejudiced his defence, therefore, entire enquiry proceedings are vitiated. It is also submitted that entire charge consists of following parts:- 1. Application of loan made by Smt. Shanti Devi for purchase of Baan Moonj on 13.6.1986 for which false pre-sanction report dated 19.6.1986 in favour of Smt. Shanti Devi as borrower was given by the petitioner in his capacity as Field Supervisor. R.B. Thathera- petitioner in collusion with P.D. Gupta the then Manager of the Bank obtained signature of Shri Ramavtar Singh, a reported seller on the reverse of the Manager's cheque in token of having received the amount from the Bank against the goods (Baan Moonj) sold to Smt. Shanti Devi and Shri Ramavtar Singh has also denied to have sold any article to Smt. Shanti Devi as well as receipt of payment. 3. The said loan amount with interest was reported to have been deposited on 30.9.1987 in the Bank by Shri Rambabu Thathera through Shri Bajrang Lal S/o Mohan Singh, Sarpanch of village Bilwari.
(3.) THE further submission of petitioner Rambabu Thathera is that the enquiry officer has held that no false pre-sanction report was prepared by the petitioner and further it has come on record that the papers were signed, loan was sanctioned and disbursed by Shri P.D. Gupta and the said amount was deposited by Smt. Shanti Devi on 30.9.1987 in the Bank, therefore, there was no reason to presume that it was deposited by R.B.Thathera or at the instance of R.B. Thathera. Thus, he was not responsible for the aforesaid alleged fictitious transaction of Rs. 1600/-, Counsel for R.B. Thathera has further submitted that the loan papers were signed by P.D. Gupta and loan was sanctioned and disbursed by him, therefore, in case P.D. Gupta has been absolved of his liability then the petitioner R.B. Thathera cannot be held liable for the charge levelled against him as his role was limited to the extent of preparation of pre-sanction report, which was held to be not false. The submission of counsel for the Bank is that on account of not providing the defence nominee an outsider employee and further by not providing 13 irrelevant documents, no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. It is a case of grave misconduct and the petitioner was rightly held liable for the entire fictitious transaction of Rs. 1600/- to Smt. Shanti Devi. Counsel has also submitted that power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution is limited in an departmental enquiry case. Facts of P.D. Gupta's case (writ petition No. 2385/1998) The writ petition filed by P.D. Gupta initially in the year 1998 was against the charge sheet dated 30.5.1990 and continuation o the enquiry proceedings even after his retirement on 31.5.1996. Subsequently, when during the pendency of the writ petition, the punishment order was passed on 13.2.1992, an amendment application was filed and the said punishment order was also challenged. The application for amendment was allowed. In the charge sheet dated 30.5.1990 as many as 8 statement of allegations are there, which have been differently numbered in the article of charge, but in the proceedings subsequent thereto, the statement of allegations has been referred as charge, therefore, the same numbers are also taken in this writ petition for convenience. As per statement of allegation, the charge No. 8 is identical to the charge levelled against R.B. Thathera, of which P.D. Gupta has been exonerated by quoting the extract of punishment order dated 31.1.1992 and he has been held guilty only of statement of allegation No. 1 and has been punished with stoppage of one annual grade increment with cumulative effect after his retirement vide order dated 13.2.1999. Challenge by the petition is only with regard to the legal issues i.e. enquiry by junior officer, continuation of enquiry after retirement and enquiry proceeding and finding on charge No. 1 on the ground that initiation of enquiry by the junior officer is illegal and the same cannot be continued after retirement as there is no provision in the Regulations for holding the enquiry after retirement. ;