# S.K. Sharma & another v. Chairman, M.K.G.B., Muzaffarnagar & others - **Citation:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad #39518 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2000 - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/s-k-sharma-another-v-chairman-m-k-g-b-muzaffarnagar-others-39518 - **Pages:** 4 ## Text 24 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000 1. Failure to discharge his duties with utmost devotion and diligence. 2. Failure to ensure and protect the interest of the Bank. 3. Doing acts unbecoming of a Bank officer. Looking to the nature and gravity of the misconduct /allegations levelled and power against. Shri S.P.Mishra as also huge outstanding in the relevant accounts. I am of the opining that the ends of justice will be met by imposing upon him the penalty of reduction of his pay one stage in the time scale of pay. Accordingly, by virtue of the power vested in me in terms of regulation 7 of the Union Bank of India Officer Employees' (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976, I hereby pass the following order: ORDER "The penalty of reduction of his pay one stage in the time scale of pay applicable to him be and is hereby imposed upon Shri S.P. Mishra'' Sd/- Disciplinary Authority'' 2. The main thrust of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Enquiry officer has completely exonerated the filing of the charges framed against him but without recording any reasons whatsoever as to why the Disciplinary Authority is differing from his findings it has proceeded to pass the order impudned a fore mentioned. 3. Learned counsel for the Respondent, after some arguments very fairly concedes that true it is that the Disciplinary Authority had not recorded any reason as to why it is differing from the report of the Enquiry Officer but having regard to the entire facts and circumstances explained in the counter affidavit the petitioner is not entitled to the grant of discretionary relief prayed for by him from this Court under Article 226 of the constitution of India . 4. Having gone through the relevant pleading and appreciated the submissions made by both learned counsel, we are of the view that since the disciplinary Authority has not recorded any reason for differing from the reports Submitted by the Inquiry Office exonerating him of the charges and had proceeded to impose the penalty of reduction of his spay by stage in the time scale of pay applicable to him, its validity cannot be sustained 5. The order passed by Disciplinary Authority is held to be illegal and is quashed .As a necessary corollary the order passed by the appellate authority as contained in Annexure-17 is also qiashed. 6. It is clarified that it will be open for the Disciplinary Authority concerned to pass fresh order in accordance lay. 7. In view of the fair stand taken by Sri V.R. Agrawal learned counsel for the Respondents, we make no order as to cost 8. This write petition is disposed of accordingly. 9. The office is directed to hand over a copy of this order within one week to Sri V.R.Agrwal learned counsel for the Respondent for its communication to and follow Up action by the Respondent concerned. Petition disposed of. ---------- 25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21 25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21 &,9,/ 6,'( &,9,/ 6,'( '$7(' $//$+$%$' '$7(' $//$+$%$' %()25( %()25( 7+( +21·%/( %',.6+,7 - 7+( +21·%/( %',.6+,7 - 7+( +21·%/( $/2. &+$.5$%$57, - 7+( +21·%/( $/2. &+$.5$%$57, - &LYLO 0LVF:ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI 6XQLO .XPDU 6KDUPD DQG DQRWKHU «3HWLWLRQHUV 9HUVXV &KDLUPDLQ 0X]DIIDU 1DJDU .DKHWUL\D *UDPLQ %DQN 6RXWK &LYLO /LQHV 0X]DIIDU 1DJDUD %DQN 6SRQVRUHG E\ 3XQMDE 1DWLRQDOV %DQN DQG RWKHUV «5HVSRQGHQWV 2ALL] S.K. Sharma & another V Chairman, M.K.G.B., Muzaffarnagar & others 25 &RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHUV 6KUL $$6ULYDVWDYD &RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQW 6KUL ./ *URYHU &RQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLD $UWLFOH ± Flaim regarding VHQLRULW\ UHMHFWHG LQ EXW GLG QRW FKDOOHQJH EHIRUH DQ\ FRXUW RI /DZ IUHVK VHQLRULW\ OLVW ZDV SXEOLVKHG LQ WKH SHWLWLRQHU FDQ QRW EH DOORZHG WR FKDOOHQJH WKH VDPH Held- 3ULRU WR WKH VDLG FLUFXODU WKH SRVW RI )LHOG VXSHUYLVRU ZHUH VXERUGLQDWH WR WKH SRVW RII RIILFHUV DQG WKHUHIRUH XSRQ PHUJHU WKH )LHOG VXSHUYLVRU JRW EHQHILW RI SURPRWLRQ DQG LQ VXFK FLUFXPVWDQFHV LQ WKH VHQLRULW\ OLVW WKH\ KDG EHHQ VKRZQ DV MXQLRU WR WKH SULYDWH UHVSRQGHQW ZKR ZDUH DGPLWWHGO\ RIILFHUV 3DUD By the Court 1. Petitioner have challenge the seniority list and relief in respect of their seniority position . 2. Contentions have been made in the writ petition that the petitioners were appointed in the year 1985 as Field Supervisor and respondent nos. 4 to 17 (hereinafter referred as private respondents) were appointed as Officer in the year1989. At the time of appointment of petitioners their service conditions were government by Muzaffar Nagar Kshetriya Gramin Bank (staff) Service Regulation, 1984 and in terms of definition of "Officer'' Field Supervisors and Officers both were include and therefore they belong to the same cadre .relevant two seniority lists dated 01.06.1992, one for field Supervisor and other for Officers have been annexed to the writ petition at Annexure no.2and3 to the writ petition .After the Circular dated 25.03 1991 was issued following the award of the National Industrial Tribunal , the posts of field Supervisors and Officers were merged with effect from 01.09.1987. Following the same, a combined seniority list (Annexure no.4to the write petition) was published in year 1993 wherein petitioner nos.1 and 2 Were shown at serial nos. 24 and 30 respectively, the positions below the private respondents. The petitioners field their objection but no relief was granted. Again in year 1997 a further combined seniority list was published, a copy of witch is enclosed at Annexure no.6 to the writ petition, showing the petitions, position further down at serial nos.33 and 39. It is contended that a Circular dated 20.03.1993 (Annexure - 8 to write petition) was issued on the basis of aforesaid award. 3. Respondents filed counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit was also filed. 4. Mr. A..K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the authorities have fixed seniority putting the petitioners below the private respondents on a wrong interpretation of Circular dated 20.03.93 as would appear from paragraph no.25 thereof. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the side provision was made only for interregnum period between 01.09.1987 and 22.02.1991 and therefore did not apply to the petition who admittedly were appointed in your 1985. It is contended that in respect of aforesaid position, applying the provision of Regulation 13(1)the petitioners being senior to the private respondent by reason of earlier appointment, can not be placed below the said respondents in the seniority list. Law has been referred to in the connection as decided I n the case of Ram Janam Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 1994(1)UPLBEC 216,Union of India Vs.S.S.Uppal reported in AIR 1996 SC 2340, State of Maharastra Vs. Purusottam reported in AIR 1996 SC 2228,S.jamaluddin Vs. High court of madras reported in AIR 1997 SC 3780 for the deciding seniority , Rules are to be followed Reference was also maid to the case of B.V. Sivaiah and others Vs. K. Addanlo Babu reported in JT 1998(5)SC 96 for showing the principles relating to 26 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000 promotion when criterion is seniority-cummerit . 5. Mr. K.L. Grover, learned counsel of the respondent Bank authorities contended that he dose not dispute the proposition of law relied on by the petitioners. 6. On behalf of respondents it has been stated that field Supervisor were the posts below the Officers prior to the Award and Circular issued and promotions were to be made from the posts of Field Supervisor to the to the Officer. In support of such contention reliance has been placed on paragraph 8 of the writ petition. 7. It is also contended that the position is clear that the posts of find Supervisor were below the Officers according to the staffing pattern before award and Circular and merger of posts of Field Supervisor with the posts of Officers. In terms of said award and circular, Field supervisor are to be en block junior to the Office as benefit of their past services have already been given when they were promoted and no further benefit as regards seniority is available. It is further contended that such seniority position was provided in the list published in year 1993 and petitioners neither protested nor moved any court of laws seeking their relief.. Therefore, further seniority list in year 1997 dose not entitle the petitioners to any relief. 8. We have considered the contentions of the respective parties. The facts that the petitioners were appointed as Field Supervisor in the year 1985 and private respondents were appointed as Officers in the year 1989 are admitted. The petitioners claim that the seniority lists of 1993 and 1997 have been wrongfully prepared putting them below the private respondents as paragraph no.25 of the Circular has been wrongly interpreted. It is contended that the said paragraph dealt with the appointments of supervisors and Officers in the interregnum period between 1.9.1987 and 22.2.1991 and it could not be applied in case of petitioners appointed earlier. The respondents denied the same. A perusal of the said circulars clearly indicate that in paragraph 6 of the circumstances prevailing earlier had been narrated. It appears that in April, 1980 the post of Accountants and Field Officer were merged with that of Branch Manager and created one combined post of Office And post of Field Assistant were merged with Field Supervisor. 9. Staffing pattern in the Regional Rural Bank is appearing from the said circular of 1991 at Annexure no.1 which indicates that prior to the said award in the category of 'Officers staff ' there were three categories viz. Field Supervisor, Officers/Branch Manager and Area Manager/Senior manager. Admittedly, after the award and the circular the posts of Field Supervisor and officers were merged as OJM-I. Therefore, there were two different cadres before such merger, one having Field supervisor and other having the officers From paragraph 6 of the Circular, we are convinced that change was brought in April, 1980 for having one cadre of Officer wherein Accountant, Field officer and Branch Manager were merged and other cadre of Field Supervisor on merger of Field Assistant with field Supervisors. It also appears from paragraph 25 of the circular that prior to circular and award there promotion from Field Supervisor to Officer. This indicates that Field Supervisor were to subordinate to Officer. We also find from paragraph 17 of the circular that such merger resulted in promotion of field Supervisors to Officers and principle has been laid down that the services rendered by the Field Officers in the lower cadre before such promotion has been rewarded by promotion it self and their past services can not once again be taken into consideration for the purpose of fitment. 10. From the aforesaid materials, we are convinced that prior to the said circular, the post of find Supervisor were subordinate to the post of Officers and therefore we are of 2ALL] Uma Stone Crushing Co. & others V State of U.P. & others 27 the opinion that upon merger, the Field Supervisor got. 11. Moreover, changes in 1993 were reflected in seniority list of 1993 and petitioner admittedly did not challenge the some before any court of low. Therefore, when fresh seniority list was published in 1997, the petitioners can not be allowed to challenge such seniority originally fixed in the year 1993. 12. In view of aforesaid finding, we do not find any irregularity in the matter of seniority list complained against. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. Petition Dismissed. --------- 25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21 25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21 &,9,/ 6,'( &,9,/ 6,'( '$7(' $//$+$%$' '$7(' $//$+$%$' %()25( %()25( 7+( +21·%/( 3$/2. %$68 - 7+( +21·%/( 3$/2. %$68 - 7+( +21·%/( 5. $*$5:$/ - 7+( +21·%/( 5. $*$5:$/ - &LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI 8PD 6WRQH &UXVKLQJ &R 2WKHUV « 3HWLWLRQHUV 9HUVXV 6WDWH RI 83 RWKHUV « 5HVSRQGHQWV &RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHUV 6KUL 63 6LQJK 6KUL <. 6D[HQD 6KUL &/ 3DQGH\ 6KUL 6DQMD\ .XPDU 6KUL ' 0XNKHUMHH 6KUL 5DPHVK 8SDGK\D\ 6KUL 03