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

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  2324 of 2006

PETITIONER: Marwar Gramin Bank & Anr.                                

RESPONDENT: Ram Pal Chouhan                                          

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 27/04/2006

BENCH: ARIJIT PASAYAT & S.H. KAPADIA

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.19442 of 2004

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

Leave granted.

Challenge in this appeal is to the correctness of the  judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High  Court, Jodhpur allowing the D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ)  No.617 of 2003 filed by the respondent.  By the impugned  order the High Court held as follows:

"In view of the aforesaid discussion, we  are of the view that the impugned order of  termination dated 8th August, 1995 suffers  from the procedural error leading to the  manifest injustice or the vice of violation of  principles of natural justice.

Consequently, special appeal is allowed.   The order of the leaned Single Judge dated  22nd July, 2003 is set aside.  The writ petition  is allowed.  The order of the Disciplinary  Authority dated 3rd August, 1995 \026 Annexure-1  and the order of the Appellate Authority dated  28.12.1995 \026 Annexure-2 are quashed and set  aside.  It is directed that the appellant shall be  reinstated in service with all consequential  benefits."            

On 27.9.2004 notice was issued by this Court limited to  sustainability of High Court’s judgment vis-‘-vis charge Nos.6  and 7.   

A brief reference to the factual aspects would suffice.

The respondent was dismissed from service under the  provisions of Regulations 30(1)(f) of the Marwar Gramin Bank  (Staff) Service Regulations, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the  "Regulations") having been found guilty of the charge of  misconduct levelled against him while he was posted at  Sarnau Branch of the appellant-Marwar Gramin Bank in  District Jalore.  A complaint came to be filed by some of the  loanees against him alleging inter alia that he demanded bribe

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

for providing them relief under the Agricultural Rural Bank  Relief Regulations.  A preliminary enquiry was conducted by  Shanti Lal Sharma, who recorded the statements of the  Manager, Field Supervisor and other staff members and also  recorded the statements of the complainants. After conducting  the preliminary enquiry, disciplinary proceedings were  initiated under Regulation 30 of the Regulations. The  respondent was served with a memorandum dated 6.9.1991  whereby he was informed that an enquiry is proposed against  him on the charges set out in the statement of charges and  explained in the statement of allegations.  The charges against  the respondent set out are as follows:- "Charge No.1 That the respondent demanded Rs.100/- from  one Narsi as bribe for closing his account and  he told the loanees to give money and take the  deposit receipts later on and because of not  giving of receipts by him, he loanees did not  deposit the money in the Bank and therefore,  he did not watch the interest of the Bank and  thus, the violated Regulations 17 and 19 of the  Regulations of 1980.  

Charge No.2 That the respondent did not give correct  information to Ganesha and Mohan Lal in  respect of their accounts and he harassed the  loanees and by not giving correct information  to the loanees and harassing the loanees, he  violated Circular dated 27.7.1981 and further,  he collected Rs.232.65 more from Mohan Lal  as bribe and thus, he violated Regulations 17  and 19 of the Regulations of 1980.

Charge No.3 That the respondent demanded Rs.200/- as  bribe from one Karmi and further, the  respondent was given Rs.1400/- towards loan  amount by Karmi, but the respondent did not  deposit that money in the Bank and kept that  amount with him unauthorisedly and thus, he  did not deposit the amount received from the  loanees in the bank and thus, violated the  Circular dated 18.2.1984 and further by  demanding bribe and keeping the recovered  amount towards loan with him, he violated the  provisions of Regulations 17 and 19 of the  Regulations of 1980.

Charge No.4. That similarly, the respondent also demanded  bribe from Teja and further, he took Rs.1300/-  from Teja, but did not deposit that money in  the Bank and kept that amount with him  unauthorisedly and therefore, he violated the  instructions contained in the circulars dated  27.7.1981 and 18.2.1984 and also violated the  provisions of Regulations 17 and 19 of the  Regulations of 1980.

Charge No.5 That the respondent did not give correct  information to the loanees in respect of  balance and already deposited loan amount  and he harassed the loanees and also gave

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

wrong information to them and thus, he  lowered down the image of the Bank.

Charge No.6 That on 25.10.1990, he was Cashier and cash  book was not closed by him on that day and  though the amount was actually received on  26.10.1990, but he issued the receipts in the  date of 25.10.1990 and thus, violated the  instructions contained in Circular dated  18.2.1984.

Charge No.7 That on the vouchers dated 25.10.1990, the  respondent did not mention the description of  notes."

       Questioning the order passed by the Disciplinary  Authority, a  writ application was filed which was dismissed by  learned Single Judge.  Special Appeal  was allowed by the  Division Bench and the orders of Disciplinary Authority and  that of the Appellate Authority were quashed.   

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the  logic of alleged violation of principles of natural justice have no  application to the facts of the present case and in any event  relating to charge nos. 6 and 7.  The explanation offered by the  respondent was duly considered and was found unacceptable.   The High Court did not deal with charge nos. 6 and 7  separately and the principles in relation to charge nos. 1 to 5   were applied to charge nos. 6 and 7 also.

Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand  submitted that the High Court has taken note of the  deficiencies in the conduct of proceedings and has rightly  interfered with the order passed by the authorities.  It is to be  noted that in the counter affidavit filed in this Court it has  been stated as follows:

"3(a)   That when witness Shri Mangla Ram was  questioned vide Question No.22 whether  on that day i.e. 26.10.1990 Mohan/Rama  came to get his accounts closed and had  brought 3 to 4 other loanees with him,  Shri Choudhury answered that the  Account of Mohan son of Rama being  DIR/26 stood closed on 25.10.90."

              It appears from the record that the Branch Manager Shri  Mangla Ram had deposed as a management witness.  He was  cross-examined by the respondent; but further prayer was  made to produce Shri Mangla Ram Choudhury again. No  reason was indicated as to why such a prayer was being made,  after he had cross examined him.  As a matter of fact, the  sustainability of charge nos. 6 and 7 depended on the  accepted stand of the respondent. Other persons could have  hardly thrown any light on the issue.  He appears to have  accepted the allegations.  That being so, the question of any  prejudice being caused by alleged non-observance of   principles of natural justice in the absence of the witnesses  being called does not arise.  The High Court does not appear to  have considered this aspect and had in a routine manner

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

applied the logic applicable to the other charges to charge nos.  6 and 7.   

The notice issued was restricted to the findings as  regards charge nos. 6 and 7. As the High Court has not  considered the issue in the proper perspective, we remit the  matter for consideration afresh on charge Nos. 6 and 7. We  make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the  merits of the case.   

The appeal is accordingly disposed of, with no order as to  costs.