http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 5811  of  1999

PETITIONER: DEOKINANDAN SHARMA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       11/04/2001

BENCH: G.B. Pattanaik & B.N. Agrawal

JUDGMENT:

B.N.AGRAWAL, J. L...I...T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T.......T..J

   This   appeal  by  special   leave  has  been  preferred challenging  the  order passed by a Division Bench of  Delhi High  Court in a Letters Patent Appeal whereby the same  was dismissed  upholding an order passed by learned single Judge of  that  Court  confirming  the order  of  removal  of  the appellant  from the service of the bank after exhausting the internal remedies.

   The  short  facts  are  that the  appellant  joined  the service  in  the State Bank of India in its Khura Branch  in the  district  of  Bulandshaher (U.P.) as  money  tester  on 26.5.1964  and  was  duly  confirmed   on  the  said   post. Thereafter,   he  was  promoted  as  officer  grade-II   and transferred  to  Agra in the year 1975 and later on  in  the year 1977 he was shifted to Faridabad branch of the bank and posted  there as Officer-in-charge of the extension counter, Sewa  Samiti,  which  counter  was  to  handle  transactions relating  to deposit accounts, outward remittance and issues and  encashment  of rupees travellers cheques only with  one man  handling.   On 13.10.1980 one Shri K.C.  Batra,  circle Auditor inspected the accounts of the said extension counter and  found  serious  financial  irregularities  therein  and reported  the  matter to Circle Vigilance Officer  whereupon the  appellant  was suspended from the service of  the  bank when  the  departmental proceeding was under  contemplation. Subsequently,  on 21.1.1983 a chargesheet was issued against the   appellant  framing  the   following  charges  in   the departmental proceedings :-

   (i)  That the petitioner purchased cheques from traders for  substantial amounts without ascertaining genuineness of transactions in excess of Rs.  10,000/-

   (ii)  That the petitioner allowed overdrafts to  various parties unauthorisedly in excess of Rs.10,000/-.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

   (iii)  That  the petitioner paid  cheques/passed  debits relating  to certain accounts without positing them/striking balance in the ledger, thus concealing the overdrafts.

   (iv)  That the petitioner afforded credits to parties by debit  to suspense account in anticipation of realisation of cheques in clearing of SCS.  in excess of Rs.10,000/-.

   (v)  That  the petitioner passed fictitious  credits  to parties  and  transferred funds from one account to  another and  reversed  such  entries  subsequently with  a  view  to conceal the overdrafts.

   (vi)  That  the  petitioner  passed  debits  to  various accounts  without  authority  from the  account  holders  in excess of Rs.10,000/-.

   (vii)  A  shortage  of  Rs.100/-  in  cash  balance  was detected   at  the  extension   counter  during  a  surprise verification on 13.10.1980.

   It  appears that different officers were appointed  from time to time to conduct the departmental enquiry against the appellant  but ultimately the enquiry commenced before  Shri R.N.   Dhingra,  who informed the appellant of the time  and place  of  enquiry to be conducted and before whom  list  of documents  to  be  relied  upon on behalf of  the  bank  was produced  by  the Presenting Officer.  In the  meantime,  it appears  one  Shri  B.R.  Sharma Officer MMG  Scale-III  was appointed as conducting officer who was later on replaced by one  Shri  Hardit  Singh, Officer SMAGS-IV  before  whom  on 5.10.1983  the Presenting Officer filed a list of  witnesses to  be examined on behalf of the bank.  During the course of the  enquiry  on 19.10.1983, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined  and cross-examined.   On  8.11.1983,  which was the  next  date, P.Ws.   4 and 5 were examined by the Presenting Officer  but were  not  cross-examined  on  that date on  behalf  of  the defence.   Thereafter, on 2.12.1983 P.W.  6 was examined and cross-examined.  As P.Ws.  4 and 5 were not cross- examined, 28.12.1983  and  14.2.1984 were fixed as dates  respectively for  their  cross-examination  but   they  were  not  cross- examined on those two dates by the defence, ultimately these two  witnesses could be cross-examined on 20.3.1984 on which date list of witnesses was also furnished for the first time by  the  defence  for their examination  and  11.4.1984  and 12.4.1984  were  the dates fixed for their examination.   On 11.4.1984  neither  the defence representative attended  the enquiry  proceeding  nor the appellant produced any  defence witness, rather he filed petition for adjournment upon which the  enquiry  was  adjourned  to  12.4.1984.   On  12.4.1984 certain documents were produced on behalf of the defence but neither  the  defence representative appeared nor  a  single witness  was  produced  on  behalf  of  the  appellant  and, therefore,  the  conducting officer decided to conclude  the enquiry,  which  was initiated in the year 1981, and not  to postpone  the  same further and submitted his  report  dated 22nd  June,  1984.   In his enquiry  report  the  conducting officer,  after  detailed consideration, found  that  charge Nos.   2,  3, 5 and 7 were proved whereas charge no.  1  was partially  proved  and  in  relation   to  charge  No.4  the conducting  officer  did not give any specific finding,  but charge No.6 according to the conducting officer could not be proved.   Upon  receipt  of the enquiry  report,  the  Chief General  Manager  of  the bank by an  order  dated  8.2.1985 passed  the  order  of  removal of the  appellant  from  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

service  of  the bank acting under Rule 49 (g) of the  State Bank  of  India Supervising Staff Service Rules  after  duly considering  the  entire matter.  The  appellant  thereafter took  up the matter in appeal and the Board of Directors  of the  bank  considered the same in detail and  confirmed  the order  of  removal  whereafter a review petition  was  filed before  the reviewing committee which also after taking into consideration  all  the pros and cons of the matter did  not find  it  expedient to interfere with the  appellate  order. The  appellant then filed a writ application before the High Court  which  was dismissed by a learned single Judge  after thoroughly  considering  the entire matter and the same  has been  affirmed in Letters Patent Appeal by Division Bench of the  High  Court  which necessitated filing  of  a  petition before  this  Court for grant of special leave to appeal  in which  leave  having  been granted, the  present  appeal  is before us.

   Mr.   Prabha  Shankar  Mishra, learned  senior  counsel, appearing  on  behalf  of the appellant in  support  of  the appeal  raised  two points, firstly, it has  been  submitted that  the  conducting  officer  did  not  afford  reasonable opportunity  of  hearing to the appellant to adduce  defence evidence  and  secondly,  that the appellate  authority  had committed error in disposing of the appeal without recording reasons and considering the submission made on behalf of the appellant.   Dr.   Rajeev  Dhawan, learned  senior  counsel, appearing  on  behalf of the respondent-bank, on  the  other hand,  submitted  that  the  conducting  officer  had  given reasonable  opportunity to the delinquent during the  course of  the enquiry to adduce defence evidence and the appellate authority  disposed  of the statutory appeal by  a  detailed order after taking into consideration the entire matter.  In support  of the first submission, learned counsel  appearing on  behalf of the appellant, on being asked by us,  produced copy  of  the petition of appeal filed before the  statutory authority, from a bare perusal of which it would appear that there  is  no  whisper  of  the  aforesaid  ground  therein. Therefore,  it  is  not possible to allow the  appellant  to raise  this  point before this Court.  Even otherwise we  do not  find any substance on merit as from relevant portion of the  order sheet of enquiry proceeding it would appear  that the  chargesheet  was  submitted   upon  the  delinquent  in January, 1983, on behalf of the bank list of documents to be relied  upon by the bank was submitted in the months of  May and  September,  1983,  list of witnesses  was  produced  on behalf   of  the  bank  in   the  month  of  October,  1983, examination  of  witnesses on behalf of the bank started  in that  very  month,  the delinquent went on taking  time  for cross-examination  of  some  of the  witnesses  examined  on behalf  of  the bank who were ultimately  cross-examined  on 20.3.1984,  only after examination of witnesses on behalf of the  bank was completed, list of witnesses was filed by  the defence for which the conducting officer fixed 11.4.1984 and 12.4.1984  as  dates  for their  examination,  on  11.4.1984 neither  the  defence representative appeared nor  a  single witness  was  produced  on behalf of the defence,  rather  a prayer  was made for time upon which the case was  adjourned to  next  day i.e., 12.4.1984, on the adjourned date,  i.e., 12.4.1984  also neither any defence representative  appeared nor  any  witness  was  produced  by  the  defence  and  the conducting  officer, therefore, had no option but to  submit his  report as in spite of full opportunity afforded to  the defence  no witness was examined.  In view of the  aforesaid facts,  we  find  no difficulty in holding  that  reasonable

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

opportunity was afforded to the appellant to adduce evidence during  the course of enquiry.  Thus the first point  raised is  devoid  of  any substance.  While  pressing  the  second submission,  learned  counsel  appearing on  behalf  of  the appellant  strenuously  placed reliance upon a  decision  of this  Court  in the case of Ram Chander vs.  Union of  India and  Others [(1986) 3 SCC 103], in which, following  earlier decision  of  this  Court in Union of  India  vs.   Tulsiram Patel,  [(1985) 3 SCC 398], it was reiterated that appellate authority  while  deciding  a statutory appeal is  not  only required  to  give  a  hearing  to  the  government  servant concerned  but  pass  a  reasoned  order  dealing  with  the contentions  raised  in the appeal.  The learned counsel  on behalf  of the appellant has taken us to the appellate order from  a  bare  perusal of which it would be clear  that  the Board  of Directors of the bank while dismissing the  appeal has  taken into consideration all the points raised  therein and  dismissed the appeal after duly considering the  entire matter.   This  being  the  position, we  do  not  find  any substance in this submission as well.  No other point having been  raised,  we do not find any infirmity in the  impugned@@                                             JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ orders   so  as  to  be   interfered  with  by  this  Court.@@ JJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJJ Accordingly,  the appeal is dismissed but there shall be  no order as to costs.