# Brijendra Pal Singh v. U.P. Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 4 ILRA 589
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-04-10
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 6907 of 2004
- **Bench:** Irshad Ali
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/brijendra-pal-singh-v-u-p-sahkari-gram-vikas-bank-ors-49980
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Disciplinary proceedings -
Rules of Natural Justice - Rules of natural
justice require that a party must be given
the opportunity to adduce all relevant
evidence upon which he relies - the
evidence of the opposite party should be
taken in his presence and that he should
be
given
the
opportunity
of
crossexamining the witnesses examined by
that party - Not providing the opportunity
to cross-examine the witnesses, would
violate the principles of natural justice -
Reasoned and Speaking order - an order
passed by an authority should be a
reasonable one and the objection taken by
a person should be dealt with - If no
reasons are given in the impugned order
then it will not be possible to know as
what was going in the mind of the
decision making authority on the basis of
which he come to the conclusion and
passed the impugned order - Disciplinary
proceedings after retirement - there is no
provision for conducting a disciplinary
enquiry after retirement nor any provision
stating
that
in
case
misconduct
is
established, a deduction could be made
from the retiral benefits (Para 23, 24)

B. Petitioner was initially appointed as
Accountant in U.P. Sahkari Gram Vikas
Bank - While working at Jhinjhak Branch,
he
committed
certain irregularities
-
petitioner was issued charge sheet -
Enquiry
officer
prepared
the
enquiry
report without giving any opportunity of
personal hearing to the petitioner and
without giving him any opportunity to
prove his innocence by means of various
documents as also to cross examine the
witnesses which were sought to be relied
upon in support of the charges - Reply
submitted by the petitioner was not
considered by the respondent before
passing the impugned order - Respondent
fixed 28.7.2004 as the date for personal
hearing and for cross examination by the
petitioner, which was sent by letter dated
13.7.2004 - the said letter was not
conveyed to the petitioner prior to the
date fixed i.e. 28.7.2004 and it was
conveyed
only
on
9.8.2004
through
registered letter dated 4.8.20224 much
after date fixed for personal hearing and
for cross examination - Held - impugned
order passed by the respondent in utter
disregard of principles of natural justice -
As the Petitioner retired from service on
29.7.2004 and that there was no provision
590 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
for conducting disciplinary enquiry after
retirement - respondents directed to
release all post retiral benefits to the
petitioner (Para 21, 23, 24)

Allowed. (E-5)

## Text

4 All. Brijendra Pal Singh Vs. U.P. Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank & Ors.
589

21. The impugned Rent Justification
Certificate dated 21 June, 2019, is set aside
and quashed.

22. The respondents are directed to
pay/refund Rs. 3,39,472/-, towards the
arrears of rent paid by the petitioner along
with interest at the rate of 7% per annum
from the due date till the date of payment.
The amount shall be released by the
competent authority of the State within four
weeks from the date of service of this order
upon
the
second
respondent-District
Magistrate, District Prayagraj.

23. Registry to ensure compliance.

24. No cost.
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 589
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 10.04.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J.

Writ-A No. 6907 of 2004

Brijendra Pal Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
U.P. Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
R.B.S. Rathore, D.K. Singh Chauhan, Surendra
Pratap Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Balram Yadav, N N Jaiswal, Rakesh Chaudhary,
S.N. Shukla

A. Civil Law - Disciplinary proceedings -
Rules of Natural Justice - Rules of natural
justice require that a party must be given
the opportunity to adduce all relevant
evidence upon which he relies - the
evidence of the opposite party should be
taken in his presence and that he should
be
given
the
opportunity
of
crossexamining the witnesses examined by
that party - Not providing the opportunity
to cross-examine the witnesses, would
violate the principles of natural justice -
Reasoned and Speaking order - an order
passed by an authority should be a
reasonable one and the objection taken by
a person should be dealt with - If no
reasons are given in the impugned order
then it will not be possible to know as
what was going in the mind of the
decision making authority on the basis of
which he come to the conclusion and
passed the impugned order - Disciplinary
proceedings after retirement - there is no
provision for conducting a disciplinary
enquiry after retirement nor any provision
stating
that
in
case
misconduct
is
established, a deduction could be made
from the retiral benefits (Para 23, 24)

B. Petitioner was initially appointed as
Accountant in U.P. Sahkari Gram Vikas
Bank - While working at Jhinjhak Branch,
he
committed
certain irregularities
-
petitioner was issued charge sheet -
Enquiry
officer
prepared
the
enquiry
report without giving any opportunity of
personal hearing to the petitioner and
without giving him any opportunity to
prove his innocence by means of various
documents as also to cross examine the
witnesses which were sought to be relied
upon in support of the charges - Reply
submitted by the petitioner was not
considered by the respondent before
passing the impugned order - Respondent
fixed 28.7.2004 as the date for personal
hearing and for cross examination by the
petitioner, which was sent by letter dated
13.7.2004 - the said letter was not
conveyed to the petitioner prior to the
date fixed i.e. 28.7.2004 and it was
conveyed
only
on
9.8.2004
through
registered letter dated 4.8.20224 much
after date fixed for personal hearing and
for cross examination - Held - impugned
order passed by the respondent in utter
disregard of principles of natural justice -
As the Petitioner retired from service on
29.7.2004 and that there was no provision
590 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
for conducting disciplinary enquiry after
retirement - respondents directed to
release all post retiral benefits to the
petitioner (Para 21, 23, 24)

Allowed. (E-5)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Irshad Ali, J.)

1. Heard Shri D.K. Singh Chauhan,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri
Balram Yadav, learned counsel for the
respondents.

2. By means of the present writ
petition, the petitioner has prayed for
issuance of a writ, order or direction in the
nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned
order dated 29.9.2004 as contained in
Annexure No.1 to the writ petition with
further prayer to issue a writ in the nature
of Mandamus commanding the respondents
to release all post retiral benefits to the
petitioner, admissible to him as per law.

3. Factual matrix of the case is that
the petitioner was initially appointed in
the year 1969 as Accountant in U.P.
Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank (hereinafter
referred to as 'Bank'), joined the said
post and continued to work on the post
and thereafter, from time to time he was
transferred at various places. In the year
1973, the petitioner was promoted to the
post of Field Officer. Since 1973, the
petitioner is continuously working on the
post of Field Officer and at the relevant
time the disciplinary proceedings were
initiated against the petitioner while
working on the post of Officiating
Manager in the aforesaid Bank at
Jhinjhak Branch. The petitioner worked
in
the
said
Branch
as
officiating
Manager from June, 2003 to January,
2004.

While working at Jhinjhak Branch, it
is said that certain irregularities were
deducted against the petitioner on which
the petitioner had been placed under
suspension inter alia on frivolous charges
vide order dated 14.5.2004. After passing
of the suspension order, the petitioner was
issued a charge sheet on 25.6.2004 which
was received by the petitioner on 9.7.2004.
The charge-sheet contained six charges.
With every charges certain amount of
evidence in the form of documentary
evidence was also mentioned in the chargesheet. The charge-sheet inter-alia stated six
charges
with
respect
to
various
irregularities being committed by the
petitioner.

The petitioner was asked to give reply
to the said charge-sheet latest by 10.7.2004
although the petitioner received the charge
sheet on 9.7.2004. The petitioner by means
of letter dated 12.7.2004 demanded time
from the respondents for inspecting the
documents
which
were
relevant
and
genuinely
needed
for
submitting
an
effective reply in order to establish his
innocence. The documents of various
nature were voluminous also and the
petitioner also wanted to see various
objections raised by the Jhinjhak Branch
for justification of alleged charges and to
what extent the petitioner was liable and
reasonable in the matter.

By means of letter dated 14.7.2004,
the petitioner was informed that he was
being supplied Annexures 2,3 and 4 of the
preliminary report of the Regional Manager
and in addition thereto the petitioner was
asked to inspect the documents at Jhinjhak
Branch and to obtain the certified copies of
the required documents and after doing all
this exercise the petitioner was asked to
submit his reply to the chargesheet latest by
25.7.2004.
4 All. Brijendra Pal Singh Vs. U.P. Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank & Ors.
591

Although the time was granted to the
petitioner to inspect the documents by
means of letter dated 14.7.2004 and the
said permission was granted in pursuance
of the letter of the petitioner dated
12.7.2004 and knowingfully well that the
documents are to be supplied to the
petitioner and that the petitioner has also
not filed reply to the charge sheet uptil now
and had demanded time for missing
documents alongwith the charge sheet, the
Bank proceeded to fix the date for personal
hearing and for cross examination by the
petitioner by means of letter dated
13.7.204.

In the said letter the date for personal
hearing
and
examination
and
cross
examination was fixed as 28.7.2004 but
this letter dated 13.7.2004 was never
conveyed to the petitioner at any point of
time and false averment has been made in
the dismissal order to the said effect that
the said letter was shown to the petitioner
on 14.7.2004 and that he refused to receive
the same. The above averment has been
made in the dismissal order only with a
view to fill in the lacuna in the enquiry
proceedings with oral averment, although
the letter dated 13.7.2004 was never shown
to the petitioner.

The letter dated 13th July, 2004 was
conveyed to the petitioner by means of
registered letter dated 4.8.2004 and the said
letter was dispatched by the Regional
Office. The letter dated 13th July, 2004 was
received
by
the
petitioner
through
registered post on 9th August, 2004. On
14.7.2004, the petitioner has been supplied
certain documents and in addition thereto
he was asked to inspect the documents at
Jhinjhak Branch to obtain certified copies
of the documents asked for submitting
reply by the petitioner.

On 28.7.2004, the respondents fixed
the date for personal hearing and cross
examination through the aforesaid letter
dated 13.7.2004, but the said letter has
never been conveyed to the petitioner at
any point of time and false averment has
been made in the dismissal order that the
said letter was shown to the petitioner on
14.7.2004 but he refused to receive the
same and the petitioner filed reply to the
charge sheet which was received by the
office of the respondents on 2nd August,
2004.

The
letter
dated
13.7.2004
was
conveyed to the petitioner by means of
registered letter dated 4.8.2004 which was
dispatched by the Regional office and
received by the petitioner on 9th August,
2004. The petitioner by means of the letter
dated
22.7.2004
asked
from
the
respondents the time upto 10.8.2004 for
submitting reply to the charge-sheet and for
personal hearing as well as to cross
examine the witnesses said to have been
replied upon by the respondents.

The petitioner waited for opportunity
of personal hearing but the respondents
without fixing any date, time and place for
enquiry proceeded exparte and concluded
the entire enquiry knowingfully well that
the petitioner is to retire on 30th
September, 2004. On 20.9.2004, the
petitioner received a show cause notice
along with the copy of the enquiry report
and the proposed punishment of dismissal
from service which was received by the
petitioner on 25th September, 2004 giving
time to the petitioner to submit his reply to
the said show cause notice upto 28th
September, 2004.

The petitioner any how submitted
reply to the show cause notice by 28.9.2004
denying all the allegations made against
him inter alia stating that the petitioner was
not
given
reasonable
and
proper
opportunity nor the enquiry has been
conducted in its true sense even he was not
592 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
permitted to cross examine the witnesses
said to have been relied upon by the
respondents, thus the entire proceedings
vitiated
for
non-observance
of
the
principles of natural justice.

The respondent vide impugned order
dated 29.9.2004 proceeded to dismiss the
petitioner only a day before his retirement
without considering the reply given by the
petitioner in which to the charge sheet, with
a view to satisfy their whims and capricious
in a most illegal and arbitrary and also
without application of mind as the
dismissal order itself indicated that the
petitioner did not submit any reply to the
show cause, whereas the said reply has
been filed by the petitioner in the Camp
Office of the Managing Director, on
28.9.2004 in a routine and mechanical
manner, thus the impugned order against
the petitioner suffers from the vice malice
and non-observance of the principle of
natural justice, as such the same is not
tenable in the eye of law and deserves to be
quashed.

The petitioner has been retired from
service and because of the dismissal from
service vide impugned order dated 29th
September, 2004, the petitioner has not
paid his post retiral dues admissible to him
under law and the petitioner is suffering
without there any fault on his part as none
of
the
charges
levelled
against
the
petitioner are of such nature which causes
any loss to the Bank in question.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that the respondents have not
fixed any date, time or place for holding
enquiry and nor any date for personal
hearing was fixed as demanded by the
petitioner in the reply to the charge sheet
itself, thus the entire enquiry initiated
against the petitioner is vitiated and is no
enquiry in the eye of law, as such the
same deserves to be ignored and rejected.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner
next submitted that the enquiry officer,
suo mottu, prepared the enquiry report
without
giving
any
opportunity
of
personal hearing to the petitioner and
without giving him any opportunity to
prove his innocence by means of various
documents as also to cross examine the
witnesses which were sought to be relied
upon in support of the charges, thus the
enquiry is vitiated and is a nullity in the
eye of law.

6.

Learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner next submitted that in spite of
submission of reply to show cause
notice, in the dismissal order a specific
finding has been recorded to the effect
that the petitioner has not submitted
reply to the show cause and the
dismissal order has been passed on 29th
September, 2004 whereas the petitioner
has submitted his reply to the show
cause notice on 28th September, 2004,
thus the impugned order has been passed
without application of mind and without
giving any weightage to the reply to the
petitioner.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner
next submitted that the petitioner received
show cause notice of proposed dismissal
only on 25th September, 2004 from the
Region Office and he submitted reply to the
show cause notice in the Camp Office of
the Managing Director on 28th September,
2004 but the same has not been considered
at all while passing the impugned order,
thus the impugned order is illegal, invalid
and has been passed without application of
mind.
4 All. Brijendra Pal Singh Vs. U.P. Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank & Ors.
593

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner
next
submitted
that
the
Disciplinary
Authority in a hurried manner and rather in
a
mechanical
manner
and
without
considering the reply of the petitioner to the
show cause notice as well as the chargesheet proceeded to dismiss the petitioner
agreeing with the finding of the Enquiry
Officer with regard to the five charges and
with respect to one charge the petitioner
was not found guilty or responsible with a
view to satisfy his whims to punish the
petitioner any how before a day of his
retirement i.e. 29.9.2004.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner
next submitted that all the charges which
have been levelled against the petitioner are
in the nature of supervisory jurisdiction and
it has been stated in the charge-sheet as
well as in the dismissal order of that the
petitioner has not supervised and performed
his duties well as required under the Rules.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner
next submitted that the dismissal order has
been passed in hurried manner and the
reply of the petitioner to the show cause
notice has not been considered and denied
to have been received by the respondents is
a sheer violation of the principle of natural
justice and also established the malice of
the authority concerned.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner
next submitted that the enquiry held in the
case of the petitioner is no enquiry in the
eye of law and is a nullity and a sham
enquiry and is liable to be ignored and
rejected in the interest of justice.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner
lastly submitted there has been total nonapplication of mind and without observing
the
principle
of
natural
justice
the
impugned order has been passed in a most
illegal, arbitrary and malafide manner
which is not sustainable in the eye of law.

13. On the other hand, learned
Standing Counsel submitted that the
inquiry officer directed to the petitioner to
present himself on 28.7.2004 at 11.00a.m.
in the Headquarter of the U.P. Sahakari
Gram Vikas Bank Ltd, Lukcnow for
personal
hearing
as
well
as
for
examination/ cross examination of the
evidences. The inquiry officer provided
him the said letter on 14.7.2004 at
Headquarter of the Bank and after reading
the same, the petitioner refused to receive
the same. Thereafter, the inquiry officer
sent the said letter dated 13.7.2004 at the
relevant place where the petitioner was
attached. He received the letter but on
28.7.2004 he had not appeared before the
inquiry officer concerned.

14. Learned Standing Counsel next
submitted that the petitioner has been
provided due opportunity of hearing to
place his facts before the competent
authority, but intentionally he failed to
choose to submit the reply at the relevant
time after having proper notice, as well as
choose not to appear, and at the later stage
he cannot be permitted to say that he had
not been given a fair opportunity of
hearing.

15. Learned Standing Counsel next
submitted that all the proceedings against
the petitioner have been initiated under the
provisions of law and there has been no
question of any biaseness against him.

16. Learned Standing Counsel next
submitted that the principles of natural
justice cannot be put into a straitjacket
formula. Its application will depend upon
594 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the facts and circumstances of each case. It
is also well settled that if a party having
proper notice choose not to appear, he at a
later stage cannot be permitted to say that
he had not been given a fair opportunity of
hearing.

17. I have considered the submissions
advanced by learned counsel for the parties
and perused the material available on
record.

18. Perusal of the material reveals that
the petitioner was initially appointed in the
year 1969 as Accountant in the Bank and
joined the said post. In the year 1973 the
petitioner was promoted to the post of Field
Officer. The petitioner worked in the said
Branch as officiating Manager from June,
2003 to January, 2004. During the said
period, certain allegations had been levelled
against the petitioner on which the petitioner
had
been
placed
under
suspension.
Thereafter, a charge sheet mentioning six
charges was issued on 25.6.2004 and
received by the petitioner on 9.7.2004
wherein the petitioner was directed to file
reply to the said charge sheet latest by
10.7.2004.

19. It is also evident that the petitioner
demanded time for inspecting the documents.
Vide letter dated 14.7.2004 the petitioner was
informed that he was being supplied
Annexures 2,3 and 4 of the preliminary report
of the Regional Manager. Thereafter, the
petitioner was asked to submit his reply to the
charge-sheet latest by 25.7.2004. The Bank
proceeded to fix 28.7.2004 as the date for
personal hearing and for cross examination
by the petitioner by means of letter dated
13.7.2004.

The letter dated 13th July, 2004 was
conveyed to the petitioner by means of
registered letter dated 4.8.2004 and the said
letter was dispatched by the Regional
Office. The said letter was received by the
petitioner through registered post on 9th
August, 2004. The petitioner by means of
the letter dated 22.7.2004 asked from the
respondents the time upto 10.8.2004 for
submitting reply to the chargesheet and for
personal hearing as well as cross examine
the witness. On 20.9.2004 the petitioner
received show cause notice along with the
copy of the enquiry report and the proposed
punishment of dismissal from service
which was received by the petitioner on
25th September, 2004 giving time to the
petitioner to submit his reply to the said
show cause notice upto 28th September,
2004.

The petitioner submitted reply to the
show cause notice by 28.9.2004 denying all
the asllegations made against him inter alia
stating that the petitioner was not given
reasonable opportunity of hearing. Vide
order dated 29.9.2004 the respondent
proceeded to dismiss the petitioner.

20. It is well settled that the
disciplinary proceedings breaks into two
stages. The first stage commences when the
disciplinary
authority
arrives
at
its
conclusion on the basis of evidence, the
enquiry officer's report and the delinquent
employee relied to it. The second stage
begins when the disciplinary authority
decides to impose penalty on the basis of
its conclusion.

It is also well settled that an order
passed by an authority should be a
reasonable one and the objection taken by a
person should be dealt with because
reasons are like a live wire which connects
the mind of the decision making authority
and the decision given by him and if this
wire/ link is broken i.e. to say no reasons
4 All. Mohd. Mustaqueem Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
595
are given in the impugned order then it will
not be possible to know as what was going
in the mind of the decision making
authority on the basis of which he has come
to the conclusion and passed the impugned
order.

21. But in the present case, letter of
the respondent dated 13.7.2004 regarding
fixing of a date as 28.7.2004 for personal
hearing and for cross examination by the
petitioner, was not conveyed to the
petitioner prior to the date fixed i.e.
28.7.2004 and it was conveyed only on
9.8.2004 through registered letter dated
4.8.20224 much after date fixed for
personal hearing and for cross examination.

Thereafter,
the
enquiry
officer
prepared the enquiry report without giving
any opportunity of personal hearing to the
petitioner and without giving him any
opportunity to prove his innocence by
means of various documents as also to
cross examine the witnesses which were
sought to be relied upon in support of the
charges. Even the reply submitted by the
petitioner has not been considered by the
respondent before passing the impugned
order. Perusal of the record produced
before
this
Court
on
30.10.2022
establishes that no documentary evidence
is available in regard to service of notice
dated 13.7.2004 to the petitioner. In this
view of the matter, there is utter disregard
of principles of natural justice in the
matter and the impugned order passed by
the respondent is bad in law and is in
violation of principles of natural justice.

22. The rules of natural justice
require that a party must be given the
opportunity
to
adduce
all
relevant
evidence upon which he relies, and further
that the evidence of the opposite party
should be taken in his presence and that he
should be given the opportunity of crossexamining the witnesses examined by that
party. Not providing the said opportunity
to cross-examine the witnesses, would
violate the principles of natural justice.

23. It is admitted position that the
petitioner
retired
from
service
on
29.7.2004 and therefore, there is no
provision for conducting a disciplinary
enquiry after his retirement nor any
provision stating that in case misconduct
is established, a deduction could be made
from the retiral benefits.

24. Considering in totalities of facts
and circumstances of the case as also the
fact that after retirement of an employee,
no
disciplinary
proceeding
can
be
continued, the order dated 29.9.2004 is
quashed. The respondents are directed to
release all post retiral benefits to the
petitioner admissible to him as per law
within a period of of six weeks from the
date of production of a certified copy of
this order.

25. In the result, the writ petition is
allowed.
----------
(2023) 4 ILRA 595
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.01.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL, C.J.
THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ A No. 10004 of 2021
with other connected cases

Mohd. Mustaqueem ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents