Chandra Vilash Rai Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 1994/1998
With Civil Appeal No. 1998/1998
With Civil Appeal No. 1998/1998
Petitioner: Chandra Vilash Rai
Respondent: State of Bihar & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 1994/1998
With Civil Appeal No. 1998/1998
With Civil Appeal No. 1998/1998
Judges: G.B. PATTANAIK & B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 02, 2001
Head Note:
SERVICE LAWS
Constitution
Articles 226, 14, 16 – Dismissal – Deliquencies committed at behest of Board of Directors – Charges serious – If such deliquencies do not amount to ‘misconduct’ – More than 20 years’ service rendered – If punishment of dismissal is harsh and disproportionate. Held that deliquencies are misconduct. However, since they were committed pursuant to directions of Board of Directors and they had served for more than 20 years, punishment of dismissal altered to that of compulsory retirement with benefits. (Para 4)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. These two appeals raise a common question and were therefore heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. Both these appellants had served as Secretary in the same co-operative society called the Bihar State Co-operative Bank Limited.For certain dereliction on their part, a regular disciplinary proceedings had been initiated and a set of charges had been levelled. In the enquiry the charges stood established and ultimately the appropriate authority passed the order of dismissal from service. Assailing the order of dismissal from service, writ petitions were filed in Patna High Court, which were heard by a Division Bench. One of the Judges was persuaded to take the view that the alleged delinquency and negligence on the part of the delinquents would not amount to misconduct since those acts and omissions were on account of the direction from the Board of Directors. The other learned Judge, however, took the view that the Secretary, who is the delinquent having contra-vened provisions of the rules and regulations and having diso-beyed orders of the Managing Director, who is the authority on whom the management of the society vest, the delinquency would tantamount to misconduct. Thus, while one learned Judge allowed the writ application, the other learned Judge dismissed the same. In view of difference of opinion between the two learned Judges, the cases were referred to the 3rd Judge. The learned 3rd Judge however agreed with the conclusion that such dereliction and omissions on the part of the delinquent tantamount to gross misconduct and therefore the order of dismissal cannot be interfered with. It is against this decision of the High Court, the present appeals have been preferred.
2. Mr. Rao appearing for the appellant in C.A. No. 1994/1998 urged before us that there was no due approval of the Registrar before passing the order of termination and as such the order of termination is vitiated. This contention does not appear to have been raised before the High Court from the impugned judgments and therefore we are not persuaded to examine this question. Mr. Rao further urged that in any view of the matter, the delinquency in question having been committed pursuance to the directions and orders of the Board of Directors, which the delinquent committed bona fide, the same would not tantamount to misconduct, and therefore, the punishment inflicted upon should be interfered with. Lastly, he submitted that in any view of the matter, taking into account the fact that the delinquents have served the socie-ty for a fairly considerable length of time and taking into the fact that they have committed the irregularities in question pursuance to the direction of the Board, the punishment of dismissal should be held to be grossly harsh and therefore appropriate punishment should be given instead of dismissal. Mr. Gobind Das, the learned senior Counsel appearing for the Bank, on the other hand, contended that looking at the gravity of charges found against the delinquent Secretaries, the disciplinary au-thority rightly passed the order of dismissal and consequently the same need not be interfered with.
3. Having examined the nature of charges alleged and proved against the two delinquents, we cannot but observe that the charges are serious, more particularly, since they relate to affairs of a co-operative bank. But at the same time, it cannot be disputed that these delinquents have rendered services in the society for more than 20 years. It also transpires that the so-called delinquency had not been committed on their own but at the behest of the Board of Directors, though in law such action would not exonerate the delinquents from the liabilities which they would incur for such illegalities and irregularities. In the aforesaid premises, we think it appropriate that ends of justice will meet if we alter the punishment of dismissal to one of premature retirement, as provided in the Staff Regulations of the Bank which appears to have been framed by the Board in its Reso-lution dated 12th March, 1985, which punishment also is a major punishment and we accordingly so direct. If the delinquents are entitled to any retirement benefits on the basis of such prema-ture retirement, that may be given to them. These appeals are disposed of accordingly.
1. These two appeals raise a common question and were therefore heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. Both these appellants had served as Secretary in the same co-operative society called the Bihar State Co-operative Bank Limited.For certain dereliction on their part, a regular disciplinary proceedings had been initiated and a set of charges had been levelled. In the enquiry the charges stood established and ultimately the appropriate authority passed the order of dismissal from service. Assailing the order of dismissal from service, writ petitions were filed in Patna High Court, which were heard by a Division Bench. One of the Judges was persuaded to take the view that the alleged delinquency and negligence on the part of the delinquents would not amount to misconduct since those acts and omissions were on account of the direction from the Board of Directors. The other learned Judge, however, took the view that the Secretary, who is the delinquent having contra-vened provisions of the rules and regulations and having diso-beyed orders of the Managing Director, who is the authority on whom the management of the society vest, the delinquency would tantamount to misconduct. Thus, while one learned Judge allowed the writ application, the other learned Judge dismissed the same. In view of difference of opinion between the two learned Judges, the cases were referred to the 3rd Judge. The learned 3rd Judge however agreed with the conclusion that such dereliction and omissions on the part of the delinquent tantamount to gross misconduct and therefore the order of dismissal cannot be interfered with. It is against this decision of the High Court, the present appeals have been preferred.
2. Mr. Rao appearing for the appellant in C.A. No. 1994/1998 urged before us that there was no due approval of the Registrar before passing the order of termination and as such the order of termination is vitiated. This contention does not appear to have been raised before the High Court from the impugned judgments and therefore we are not persuaded to examine this question. Mr. Rao further urged that in any view of the matter, the delinquency in question having been committed pursuance to the directions and orders of the Board of Directors, which the delinquent committed bona fide, the same would not tantamount to misconduct, and therefore, the punishment inflicted upon should be interfered with. Lastly, he submitted that in any view of the matter, taking into account the fact that the delinquents have served the socie-ty for a fairly considerable length of time and taking into the fact that they have committed the irregularities in question pursuance to the direction of the Board, the punishment of dismissal should be held to be grossly harsh and therefore appropriate punishment should be given instead of dismissal. Mr. Gobind Das, the learned senior Counsel appearing for the Bank, on the other hand, contended that looking at the gravity of charges found against the delinquent Secretaries, the disciplinary au-thority rightly passed the order of dismissal and consequently the same need not be interfered with.
3. Having examined the nature of charges alleged and proved against the two delinquents, we cannot but observe that the charges are serious, more particularly, since they relate to affairs of a co-operative bank. But at the same time, it cannot be disputed that these delinquents have rendered services in the society for more than 20 years. It also transpires that the so-called delinquency had not been committed on their own but at the behest of the Board of Directors, though in law such action would not exonerate the delinquents from the liabilities which they would incur for such illegalities and irregularities. In the aforesaid premises, we think it appropriate that ends of justice will meet if we alter the punishment of dismissal to one of premature retirement, as provided in the Staff Regulations of the Bank which appears to have been framed by the Board in its Reso-lution dated 12th March, 1985, which punishment also is a major punishment and we accordingly so direct. If the delinquents are entitled to any retirement benefits on the basis of such prema-ture retirement, that may be given to them. These appeals are disposed of accordingly.
