Supreme Court of India
THE UTTAR BIHAR GRAMIN BANK & ORS. versus NARENDRA KUMAR SINHA on 3 October 2018
THE UTTAR BIHAR GRAMIN BANK & ORS.
v.
NARENDRA KUMAR SINHA
(Civil Appeal No. 10180 of 2018)
OCTOBER 03, 2018
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.]
Service Law: Dismissal of respondent-employee on threecharges of misconduct in performance of official duties – Appellateauthority dismissed the appeal of respondent – Single judge of HighCourt allowed the writ petition and remanded the case to theappellate authority for fresh consideration – On remand, appellateauthority affirmed the dismissal order – Respondent again filed writpetition – Single judge of High Court held that charge no.2 was notproved and without expressing any opinion on charge no.1 and 3again remanded the matter to appellate authority for rehearing oncharge no.1 and 3 – On appeal, Division Bench of High Courtremanded the case to the Disciplinary authority holding that Singlejudge erred in remanding the case to the appellate authority – Instantappeal filed by the appellant-bank – Held: Single Judge failed tosee that so far as charge Nos. 1 and 3 were concerned, both wereheld proved against the employee in the departmental enquiry –Single Judge was under legal obligation to examine each chargeindependently and then record his findings on all the charges inaccordance with law – Division Bench having noticed the saiderror instead of rectifying the same erred in remanding the case tothe disciplinary authority instead of remanding it to the Single Judgefor deciding the writ petition on merits – The writ petition is,therefore, restored to its original file – Single judge to decide thewrit petition afresh.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD: The Single Judge erred in remanding the case to theAppellate Authority. It is for the reason that the Single Judgeconfined his examination only to charge No. 2 and held the sameas not proved whereas he failed to examine the case so far ascharge Nos. 1 and 3 are concerned. It should have been seen
751
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
Athat so far as charge Nos. 1 and 3 are concerned, both were heldproved against the employee in the departmental enquiry. In thesecircumstances, the Single Judge was under legal obligation toexamine each charge independently and then he should haverecorded his findings on all the charges in accordance with law. Itwas, however, not done. So far as the Division Bench isBconcerned, they having noticed the said error committed by theSingle Judge instead of rectifying the same yet committed anothererror by remanding the case to the disciplinary authority insteadof remanding it to the Single Judge for deciding the writ petitionon merits. Remand of the case to disciplinary authority by theCDivision Bench in the facts of this case was, therefore, unjustified.[Paras 12-15] [754-C-F]CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 10180of 2018
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.11.2017 passed by theDHigh Court of Judicature at Patna in LPA No. 96 of 2015
WITH
Civil Appeal Nos. 10182-10183 of 2018
Sunil Kumar, Sr. Adv., Vinay Navare, Ms. Gwen Kartika,ESatyajeet Kumar, Himanshu Shekhar, Ms. Rohini Prasad, AkshatChaitanya, Jamnesh Kumar, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. Leave granted in both the S.L.Ps.F
In Civil Appeal No10180 of 2018 @ S.L.P.(C) No. 4565/2018
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and orderdated 30.11.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna inL.P.A. No.96 of 2015 whereby the Division Bench of the High CourtGdismissed the appeal filed by the appellant-Bank and while modifyingthe order of the Single Judge dated 26.09.2014 in C.W.J.C. No.25672 of2013 remanded the case to the Disciplinary Authority for freshconsideration.
2. Few facts need mention hereinbelow for the disposal of theHappeal, which involves a short point.
THE UTTAR BIHAR GRAMIN BANK & ORS. v. NARENDRAKUMAR SINHA [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]
3. The respondent-Narendra Kumar Sinha was in theemployment of the appellant-Bank. The appellant-Bank, by order dated16.04.2011, dismissed the respondent-employee on 3 charges on the basisof the misconduct committed by him in performance of official dutiesafter holding departmental enquiry as per the Service Rules. In thedepartmental enquiry, all the 3 charges stood proved against therespondent.
4. The respondent felt aggrieved and filed departmental appealbefore the Appellate Authority as prescribed under the service rules.The Appellate Authority, by order dated 13.01.2012, dismissed the saidappeal. The respondent felt aggrieved and filed writ petition (CWJCNo.6915/2012) in the High Court of Patna and questioned the legalityand correctness of his dismissal order and the Appellate Authority’s order.
5. The Single Judge, by order dated 18.10.2012, allowed thewrit petition, set aside the Appellate Authority’s order and remanded thecase to the Appellate Authority for fresh consideration.
6. On remand, the Appellate Authority, by order dated 06.07.2013,dismissed the respondent’s appeal and affirmed the dismissal order. Therespondent felt aggrieved and again filed writ petition (CWJC 25672/2013). The Single Judge, by order dated 26.09.2014 held that chargeNo. 2 is not proved and without expressing any opinion on charge Nos.1 & 3 again remanded the matter to the Appellate Authority for rehearingon charge Nos. 1 and 3. The Single Judge also proceeded to set asidethe order of dismissal.
7. The appellant-Bank felt aggrieved by the order of the SingleJudge and filed Letters Patent Appeal No. 96/2015 before the DivisionBench whereas the respondent (employee) also felt aggrieved by theorder of the Single Judge and filed Letters Patent Appeal No.764/2015.The Division Bench disposed of both the appeals by common impugnedorder.
8. The Division Bench, by impugned order, dismissed the appealfiled by the appellant-Bank and while modifying the order of the SingleJudge held that the Single Judge instead of remanding the case to theAppellate Authority should have remanded it to the Disciplinary Authorityfor fresh decision. Accordingly, the Division Bench remanded the caseto the Disciplinary Authority.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
A9. It is against this decision of the Division Bench, the Bank hasfelt aggrieved and filed this appeal by way of special leave in this Court.
10. Heard Mr. Sunil Kumar, learned senior counsel for theappellant-Bank and Mr. Vinay Navare, learned counsel for therespondent-Employee.B
11. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusalof the record of the case, we are inclined to set aside the impugnedorder as also the order of the Single Judge and remand the case to theSingle Judge for deciding the writ petition on merits.
12. In our considered opinion, the Single Judge erred in remandingCthe case to the Appellate Authority. It is for the reason that the SingleJudge confined his examination only to charge No. 2 and held the sameas not proved whereas he failed to examine the case so far as chargeNos. 1 and 3 are concerned.
13. It should have been seen that so far as charge Nos. 1 and 3Dare concerned, both were held proved against the employee in thedepartmental enquiry.
14. In these circumstances, the Single Judge was under legalobligation to examine each charge independently and then he shouldhave recorded his findings on all the charges in accordance with law. ItEwas, however, not done.
15. So far as the Division Bench is concerned, they having noticedthe aforesaid error committed by the Single Judge instead of rectifyingthe same yet committed another error by remanding the case to thedisciplinary authority instead of remanding it to the Single Judge forFdeciding the writ petition on merits. Remand of the case to disciplinaryauthority by the Division Bench in the facts of this case, in our view,was, therefore, unjustified in the light of reasons mentioned above.
16. We are, therefore, unable to agree with the reasoning and theconclusion arrived at by the Single Judge and also the Division BenchGdue to the aforementioned reasons and, therefore, set aside both theorders.
17. The appeal filed by the appellant-Bank thus succeeds and isaccordingly allowed. Impugned order and the order of the Single Judgeare hereby set aside. The writ petition (C.W.J.C. No.25672/2013) filedHby the respondent-employee is accordingly restored to its original file.
THE UTTAR BIHAR GRAMIN BANK & ORS. v. NARENDRAKUMAR SINHA [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J.]
18. The Single Judge will now decide the writ petition on merits inaccordance with law uninfluenced by any observations made earlier bythe Single Judge and the Division Bench in their respective orders passedearlier and also by this Court.
A
19. Since the matter is quite old, we request the Single Judge todecide the writ petition as expeditiously as possible preferably within aBperiod of six months.
In C.A. Nos. 10182-10183 of 2018 @S.L.P(C) Nos. 27063-27064of 2018 (D.No.31240 of 2018)
These appeals are directed against the final judgment and orderdated 30.11.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna inL.P.A. Nos. 96 & 764 of 2015 whereby the High Court dismissed theappeal filed by the respondent-Bank and the appeal filed by the appellant-employee herein.
C
In view of the detailed order passed above in C.A. arising ofS.L.P.(c) No.4565 of 2018 filed by the Bank, these appeals stand disposedDof.
Devika Gujral Appeals disposed of.
E
F
G
H