ANIL GILURKER Vs BILASPUR RAIPUR KSHETRIA GRAMIN BANK ANR
Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN,A.K. PATNAIK, , ,
Case number: C.A. No.-007864-007865 / 2011
Diary number: 29054 / 2010
Advocates: KUNAL VERMA Vs
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL Nos. 7864-7865 OF 2011 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) NOs.33088-33089 OF 2010)
Anil Gilurker … Appellant
Versus
Bilaspur Raipur Kshetria Gramin Bank & Anr. … Respondents
O R D E R
A. K. PATNAIK, J.
Leave granted.
2. These are appeals against the order dated 28.04.2010
of the Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court
in Writ Appeal No.57 of 2010 and Writ Appeal No.82 of
2010.
3. The facts very briefly are that on 03.05.1984 the
appellant was appointed as a Branch Manager in the
Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank by way of
direct recruitment and he successfully completed the
period of probation. While he was working on the post
of Branch Manager in Branch Patewa, he sanctioned
and distributed loans to a large number of brick
manufacturing units under the Integrated Gram
Development Programme. The disciplinary authority
placed the appellant under suspension and issued a
charge-sheet dated 31.01.1989 against him for
misconduct punishable under Regulation 30(1) of the
Staff Service Regulations. In the charge-sheet, it was
alleged that the appellant sanctioned and distributed
loans to a large number of brick manufacturing units
in a very short period of time, but had not in fact
disbursed the entire loan amount to the borrowers and
part of the loan amount was misappropriated by him.
The appellant was asked to submit his written defence
in reply to the charges. On 11.02.1989, the appellant
submitted his written defence denying the allegations
made in the charge-sheet. An Inquiry Officer enquired
into the charges against the appellant and submitted
his report with a finding that the witnesses produced
by the Bank had not said that what was actually
advanced was less than the loan amount, and
2
although there were some serious irregularities, the
charge of financial corruption against the appellant
had not been proved. The disciplinary authority in his
order dated 10.09.1991 disagreed with the findings of
the Inquiry Officer and held that the charge of financial
corruption against the appellant had been proved and
that the appellant had not only violated the Rules of
the Bank, but had also tried to cause financial loss to
the Bank and by abusing his position, had lowered
down the reputation of the Bank. In the order dated
10.09.1991, the disciplinary authority proposed to
impose the punishment of removal of the appellant
along with forfeiture of the contribution of the Bank to
the Provident Fund of the appellant under Section
50(1) of the Staff Regulations. By the order dated
10.09.1991, the disciplinary authority directed that a
copy of the order and report of the Inquiry Officer be
sent to the appellant to show-cause why he should not
be punished as proposed. On 18.09.1991, the
appellant submitted his reply to the show-cause notice
and on 25.11.1991, the disciplinary authority passed
3
the order of removal. Aggrieved, the appellant filed an
appeal against the order of the disciplinary authority,
but the appeal was dismissed by the appellate
authority.
4. The appellant then filed a Writ Petition before the
Madhya Pradesh High Court challenging the order of
removal passed by the disciplinary authority. After the
reorganization of the Madhya Pradesh in the year
2000, the Writ Petition was transferred to the
Chhattisgarh High Court and was heard by a learned
Single Judge of the Chhattisgarh High Court. The
learned Single Judge in his judgment dated
22.02.2010 found that in the charge-sheet, there is no
reference to any specific documents or to the names of
the persons who had not been given the loan amounts
and accordingly took the view that in the charge-sheet
there were no specific charges. Relying on the
decisions of this Court in Surath Chandra Chakrabarty
v. State of West Bengal [(1970) 3 SCC 548], Sawai
Singh v. State of Rajasthan [(1986) 3 SCC 454] and
Union of India & Ors. v. Gyan Chand Chattar [(2009) 12
4
SCC 78], the learned Single Judge held that when the
charges levelled against the delinquent officer in the
charge-sheet were vague and not specific and the
entire enquiry is vitiated. The learned Single Judge
quashed the orders of the disciplinary authority and
the appellate authority and directed reinstatement of
the appellant in service with continuity in service and
without loss of seniority in the post to which he would
be entitled to. The learned Single Judge further
directed that the appellant will be entitled to
compensation of Rs.1.5 lacs in lieu of arrears of his
salary.
5. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge
granting only Rs.1.5 lacs as compensation in lieu of
arrears of salary, the appellant filed Writ Appeal No.57
of 2010 and aggrieved by the impugned order of
learned Single Judge in the Writ Petition quashing the
orders of the disciplinary authority and the appellate
authority, the respondents filed Writ Appeal No.82 of
2010. After hearing the Writ Appeals, the Division
Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court held in the
5
impugned order that the charges against the appellant
as described in the charge-sheet were not vague as on
the basis of documents mentioned in the charge-sheet,
it has been alleged that the appellant had sanctioned
the loans and had shown the loans only on paper but
had not actually disbursed the loans to the borrowers.
The Division Bench of the High Court, however, held
that as the disciplinary authority had disagreed with
the findings in the inquiry report, he should have
furnished his reasons for the disagreement to the
appellant before passing the order of punishment. The
Division Bench of the High Court further held that the
disciplinary authority cannot conduct further enquiry
suo motu to fill up the lacuna in the enquiry. The
Division Bench of the High Court allowed both the
appeals and directed that the disciplinary authority
will consider the inquiry report, the evidence recorded
by the Enquiry Officer and the documents relied upon
in the charge-sheet and take a fresh decision in
accordance with law. The Division Bench of the High
Court further observed in the impugned order that if
6
the disciplinary authority takes a view on
reconsideration of the matter not to take any further
action against the appellant, he shall be given all the
consequential benefits along with reinstatement.
6. We have heard Mr. Ravindra Shrivastava, learned
counsel for the appellant and Mr. Akshat Shrivastava,
learned counsel for the respondents, and we are of the
considered opinion that the Division Bench of the High
Court was not correct in taking a view in the impugned
order that the charges against the appellant were not
vague. The English translation of the charges and the
statement of imputations extracted from the charge-
sheet dated 31.01.1989 served on the appellant is
reproduced hereinbelow:
Charge Sheet No. D/A/756 dated 31.1.89
Statement of imputations Charge While working as Branch Manager in Branch Patewa, in the first quarter of the year 1988, have sanctioned and distributed loan of brick manufacturing in large number under the Integrated Gram Development Programme by committing unauthorized irregularities contrary to the rules and
Tempted with his malafide intention serious violation of the Rules and interests of the Bank and Administration, in a very short period of time sanction the loan of Brick manufacturing in large scale under the “I. Gram. Dev. Prog.” And distributed and in most of the loan cases, without actually distribution
7
interest of the bank and administration. In most of these loan cases you have shown cash distribution of the entire loan and has given only one minor part of the loan amount to the Borrower in cash and from the balance amount, some amount has been deposited in their saving accounts (deducting contribution amount equivalent to the amount for closing the loan account) and the remaining amount has been grabbed by you, branch employees and in collusions with the Gram Sewaks. After a very little time adjusting the contribution amount in these loan accounts, you have withdrawn the amount from the Saving Accounts of the concerned borrowers, you have closed most of the loan accounts much before the time fixed for the repayment.
of the entire loan amount, you have completed the documentary proceedings, and showing the cash distribution of the entire loan amount, only a minor share of the loan has been given cash to the concerned borrower and from the remaining amount some amount has been deposited in the account of the borrower and the balance amount in connivance with other persons have been grabbed. With the intention to cover up your this act, only after a few time of the loan distribution, you have withdrawn the amount from the saving accounts of the concerned borrowers and most of the accounts have been closed before time. As such for the fulfillment of your personal gain you have deliberately misused the position of your post and has committed financial corruption in large scale. From which cause serious shock the interests of the bank administration and the borrower also, the reputation of the bank has also been lowered down. Your this act is a misconduct under Sections 17, 19 and 30(1) of the Employees Collection Service Regulations.
8
7. A plain reading of the charges and the statement of
imputations reproduced above would show that only
vague allegations were made against the appellant that
he had sanctioned loans to a large number of brick
manufacturing units by committing irregularities, but
did not disburse the entire loan amount to the
borrowers and while a portion of the loan amount was
deposited in the account of the borrowers, the balance
was misappropriated by him and others. The details of
the loan accounts or the names of the borrowers have
not been mentioned in the charges. The amounts of
loan which were sanctioned and the amounts which
were actually disbursed to the borrowers and the
amounts alleged to have been misappropriated by the
appellant have not been mentioned.
8. We also find that along with the charge-sheet dated
31.01.1989 no statement of imputations giving the
particulars of the loan accounts or the names of the
borrowers, the amounts of loans sanctioned, disbursed
and misappropriated were furnished to the appellant,
and yet the disciplinary authority has called upon the
9
appellant to submit his written defence statement in
reply to the charges. We fail to appreciate how the
appellant could have submitted his written statement
in defence in respect of the charges and how a fair
enquiry could be held unless he was furnished with
the particulars of the loan accounts or the names of
the borrowers, the amounts of loan sanctioned, the
amounts actually disbursed and the amounts
misappropriated were also furnished in the charge-
sheet.
9. As has been held by this Court in Surath Chandra
Chakrabarty v. State of West Bengal (supra):
“5. …..The grounds on which it is proposed to take action have to be reduced to the form of a definite charge or charges which have to be communicated to the person charged together with a statement of the allegations on which each charge is based and any other circumstance which it is proposed to be taken into consideration in passing orders has also to be stated. This rule embodies a principle which is one of the basic contents of a reasonable or adequate opportunity for defending oneself. If a person is not told clearly and definitely what the allegations are on which the charges preferred against him are founded he cannot possibly, by projecting his own imagination, discover all the facts and circumstances that may be in the
10
contemplation of the authorities to be established against him…..”
10. This position of law has been reiterated in the recent
case of Union of India & Ors. v. Gyan Chand Chattar
(supra) and in Para 35 of the judgment as reported in
the SCC, this Court has observed that the law can be
summarized that an enquiry is to be conducted against
any person giving strict adherence to the statutory
provisions and principles of natural justice and the
charges should be specific, definite and giving details
of the incident which formed the basis of charges and
no enquiry can be sustained on vague charges.
11. We, therefore, allow these appeals, set aside the
impugned order of the Division Bench and restore the
order of the learned Single Judge. Considering the
peculiar facts and circumstances, we delete the
direction of the learned Single Judge to pay Rs.1.5 lacs
to the appellant as compensation in lieu of arrears of
salary and we are also not inclined to grant any
backwages to the appellant. There shall be no order as
to costs.
11
.……………………….J. (R. V. Raveendran)
………………………..J. (A. K. Patnaik) New Delhi, September 15, 2011.
12