# Chandrapal Singh v. Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Allahabad Bank & Anr

- **Citation:** (2015) 2 ILRA 652
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2015-05-29
- **Case number:** W.P. No. 644 (SB) of 2015
- **Bench:** Shri Narayan Shukla, Rajan Roy
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/chandrapal-singh-v-chairman-cum-managing-director-allahabad-bank-anr-43265
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Art.-226-Dismissal
of Branch Manager-on conviction on
offence under Prevention of Corruption
Act-prior infliction of punishment as per
provision of Allahabad Bank Officer
(Employees Discipline and Appeal Rulesnotice
issued-considering
reply
and
conduct of petitioner-dismissal order
passed-unless acquitted in appeal-can
not be interfered by Writ Court-petition
dismissed.
Held: Para-7
We have also perused the relevant rules
which permit dismissal from service in
such circumstances and we do not find
any violation of the rules or the law in
the present case. In these circumstances
we do not find it a fit case for
interference under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
Case Law discussed:
(2010) 8 SCC 537; 1985 (51) FLR 362 (SC);
1995 SCC (L & S) 686; (2009) 9 SCC 24; W.P.
No. 459 (SB) of 2015; Spl. Appl. (D) No. 219
of 2015; (2014) 7 SCALE 434.

## Text

652
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
55. Office is directed to send the
certified copy of this order to the court
concerned for compliance.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 29.05.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SHRI NARAYAN SHUKLA, J.
THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.
W.P. No. 644 (SB) of 2015
Chandrapal Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
Chairman-cum-Managing Director,
Allahabad Bank & Anr.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Vijai Prakash Tiwari and Mohd. Naeem
Counsel for the Respondents:
Vinay Shanker
Constitution of India, Art.-226-Dismissal
of Branch Manager-on conviction on
offence under Prevention of Corruption
Act-prior infliction of punishment as per
provision of Allahabad Bank Officer
(Employees Discipline and Appeal Rulesnotice
issued-considering
reply
and
conduct of petitioner-dismissal order
passed-unless acquitted in appeal-can
not be interfered by Writ Court-petition
dismissed.
Held: Para-7
We have also perused the relevant rules
which permit dismissal from service in
such circumstances and we do not find
any violation of the rules or the law in
the present case. In these circumstances
we do not find it a fit case for
interference under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
Case Law discussed:
(2010) 8 SCC 537; 1985 (51) FLR 362 (SC);
1995 SCC (L & S) 686; (2009) 9 SCC 24; W.P.
No. 459 (SB) of 2015; Spl. Appl. (D) No. 219
of 2015; (2014) 7 SCALE 434.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajan Roy, J.)
1. Heard Mr. Vijai Prakash Tiwari,
learned counsel for the petitioner as well
as Mr. Gopal Kumar Srivastava, learned
counsel for opposite parties.
2. By means of this writ petition the
petitioner has challenged the order dated
19.06.2013 passed by the disciplinary
authority dismissing the petitioner from
service, as also the appellate order dated
20.12.2014 rejecting his appeal against
the said order.
3. The facts of the case, in brief, are
that the petitioner who is the erstwhile
Manager, Naka Branch of Allahabad
Bank, was convicted by the Special Judge
(CBI)
Court
No.1,
Lucknow
vide
judgment dated 14.08.2012. in Criminal
Case No.4/2004, under Section 7 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and
was awarded a sentence of rigorous
imprisonment for four years with fine of
Rs.10,000/- and in default of payment of
fine simple imprisonment for 6 months as
also rigorous imprisonment for five years
with a fine of Rs.15000/- in default simple
imprisonment for one year under Section
13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988. Both the
sentences were to run concurrently. Based
on
the
aforesaid
conviction
the
disciplinary authority issued an office
memorandum dated 14.02.2013 to the
petitioner under Regulation 11 of the
Allahabad Bank Officers Employees
(Discipline and Appeal) Regulations,
1976 read with Section 10(1) (b) (i) of the
Banking Regulations Act, 1949, read with
Regulation 4 (j) of the Regulations, 1976,
2 All] Chandrapal Singh Vs. Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Allahabad Bank & Anr.
653
calling
upon
him
to
submit
his
representation on the proposed penalty
within 10 days to which the petitioner
submitted his reply. After analyzing the
reply of the petitioner the impugned order
dated 19.06.2013 was passed by the
disciplinary
authority
dismissing
the
petitioner from service. Thereafter an
appeal was preferred by the petitioner
which has also been rejected by the
appellate
authority
by
order
dated
20.12.2014 giving cogent reasons based
on the provisions of the Rules 1976,
Banking Regulation Act, 1949, certain
decisions of the Supreme Court reported
in (2010)8 SCC 537 (Sushil Kumar
Singhal Vs. Regional Manager, Punjab
National Bank). Being aggrieved this writ
petition has been filed challenging the
aforesaid orders.
4. The contention of learned counsel
for
the
petitioner
was
that
the
disciplinary/appellate authority have not
considered the conduct of the petitioner
leading to his conviction and have passed
the order on the premise as if such
conviction
automatically
entailed
dismissal
from
service
which
was
contrary to the Constitution Bench
decision in the case of Union of India and
another Vs. Tulsi Ram Patel, reported in
1985 (51) FLR 362 (SC).
5. The learned counsel for the Bank
on the other hand submitted that the
impugned orders do not suffer from any
error as they have been passed in terms of
the relevant provisions in the Rules as
well as the pronouncement of the
Supreme Court in the case of Deputy
Director
of
Collegiate
Education
(Administration), Madras Vs. S. Nagoor
Meera reported in 1995 SCC (L&S) 686
and
Southern
Railway
Officers
Association and another Vs. Union of
India and others, reported in (2009) 9
SCC 24 holding that a convicted bank
employee cannot be allowed to continue
in service.
6.
Having heard learned counsel for
the parties and perused the records we are
unable to accept the contention of learned
counsel for the petitioner. In the impugned
order it is clearly mentioned that the said
order was being passed after "carefully
considering the ground of conduct of Sri
Chandrapal Singh which led to his
conviction". Based thereon the disciplinary
authority formed the opinion that the
circumstances
of
the
case
warranted
imposition of penalty of dismissal from
service. It is also relevant to refer a recent
decision of this Court in Writ Petition No.
459 (SB) of 2015 Manoj Kumar Vs. Union
of India and others, decided on 09.04.2015,
wherein considering the Division Bench
judgment of this Court dated 25.03.2015
rendered in Special Appeal (Defective) No.
219 of 2015 State of U.P. Vs. Prem Milan
Tiwari, the case of Deputy Director of
Collegiate
Education
(Administration),
Madras Vs. S. Nagoor Meera (supra), and
the case of Government of A.P. And another
Vs. B. Jagjeevan Rao, reported in (2014) 7
SCALE 434 as well as Union of India and
another Vs. Tulsi Ram Patel (supra) were
considered and following the said judgments,
especially S. Nagoor Meera's case (supra) it
was observed that "Regard being had to the
aforesaid enunciation of law and keeping in
view the expected standard of administration,
conviction on the charge of corruption has to
be viewed seriously and unless the
conviction is annulled, an employer cannot
be compelled to take an employee back in
service." the Court declined to interfere
during subsistence of conviction. In our view
in the impugned order the disciplinary
654
 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
authority has not only considered the conduct
of the petitioner which has led to his
conviction based on the provisions of
criminal law under which he has been
convicted for indulging in corruption, but it
is also difficult to fathom that any other view
of the matter could have been taken by the
disciplinary authority in the facts of the
present case considering the seriousness of
the criminal offence for which the petitioner
has been convicted. We may also refer to the
decision of the Supreme Court in the case of
Allahabad Bank Vs. Deepak Kumar Bhola,
reported in (1998)9 SCC 265 wherein in a
matter of suspension the Supreme Court
observed that it would be unsuitable that a
Bank should allow an employee to continue
on duty when he is facing serious charges of
corruption and misappropriation of the
money. Accordingly it quashed the judgment
of the High Court quashing the order of
suspension of an employee of Allahabad
Bank. In the case at hand the petitioner has
already been convicted on charges of
corruption
under
the
Prevention
of
Corruption Act, therefore, he is not entitled
to continue in service unless the conviction is
set aside in the appeal filed by him against
the same.
7. We have also perused the relevant
rules which permit dismissal from service in
such circumstances and we do not find any
violation of the rules or the law in the present
case. In these circumstances we do not find it
a fit case for interference under Article 226
of the Constitution of India.
8. Consequently relief no. 2 prayed
in the writ petition also cannot be granted
by this Court at this stage.
9. The writ petition is, accordingly,
dismissed.
--------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 19.05.2015
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DR. DEVENDRA KUMAR
ARORA, J.
Service Single No. 2200 of 2015
NR-20124W, Lt. Col. (Military Nursing
Services) Madhu Lata Gaur ...Petitioner
Versus
Armed Force Tribunal Regional Bench &
Ors.
...Respondents
Counsel for the Petitioner:
P.N. Chaturvedi, Vinay Pandey
Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.
(A)
Constitution
of
India,
Art.-226Maintainability of Writ Petition-against
order passed by Army Tribunal-Statutory
provision of appeal-cannot be allowed to
bypassed-petition dismissed.
Held: Para-17
In
view
of
the
aforesaid
legal
proposition, it is imminently clear that
the writ petition filed by the petitioner
assailing the order of the Tribunal is not
maintainable and as such this Court is
not inclined to exercise discretionary
writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution and the writ petition is
liable to be dismissed.
(B)Constitution of India, Art. 14-binding
precedent-Law laid down by Supreme
Court-binding upon all High Courts-can
not be ignored-even certain relevant
provisions not brought to notice of
Supreme Court.
Held: Para-16
Before parting, it may be pointed out
that
the
law
declared
by
Hon'ble
Supreme Court is binding on all courts,
including High courts, and High courts