# Sankatha Prasad Singh v. Regional Administrative Committee and others - **Citation:** (2003) 1 ILRA 96 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2002-08-28 - **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 22342 of 1999 - **Bench:** M. Katju, Rakesh Tiwari - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sankatha-prasad-singh-v-regional-administrative-committee-and-others-39136 - **Pages:** 5 ## Headnote Constitution of India-Article 226dismissal order - a bank operates on public confidence and hence the highest degree of discipline and integrity and discipline is required from bank employees as compared to other employees, otherwise the public will lose confidence in the Bank and there may be a run on the bank to withdraw money. Sufficient compliance of natural justice (Held- para 14) We have perused the appellate order also and find no illegality in the same. The finding of fact has been recorded by both the authorities that the petitioner has embezzled the amount in question by passing farzi resolution which was a serious misconduct. In our opinion sufficient opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. As stated above the rules of natural justice are not a straight jacket formula and it all depends on the facts of each case whether the hearing was adequate or not. Case law referred- 1981 UPLBEC 393 AIR 1973 SC 1260 AIR 2001 SC 24 http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in 1 All] Sankatha Prasad Singh Vs. Regional Administrative Committee and others 97 1994(5) JT 280 2000(3) UPLBEC 193 ## Text http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in 96 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003 dated 28.8.2002 passed under the National Security Act vide Annexcure-1 to the writ petition. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Several arguments have been advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner but this petition deserves to succeed on the very first ground, namely, that the detaining authority did not inform the petitioner that he has a right to make a representation to the detaining authority. This averment has been made in paragraph 9 and 10 of the writ petition. In paragraph 4 of the counter affidavit it has been stated that the petitioner has been informed that he can make a representation to the State Government, Central Government and the Advisory Board. However, it has not been stated that the petitioner was informed that he can also make a representation to the detaining authority. Hence in view of the Division Bench decisions of this Court in Jai Prakash Shastri vs. Adhikshak, Janpad Karagar 2000 (41) SCC 843 and Vijai Kumar Misra vs. Superintendent, District Jail, 2002 Current Bail Cases 455 which have followed the decision of the Supreme Court in State of Maharashtra vs. Santosh Shastri Acharya J.T. 2000 (41) ACC 704 this petition is allowed. The impugned detention order dated 28.8.2002 is quashed. The petitioner shall be released forthwith unless required in some other criminal or preventive detention case. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD NOV. 12, 2002 BEFORE THE HON'BLE M. KATJU, J. THE HON'BLE RAKESH TIWARI, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 22342 of 1999 Sankatha Prasad Singh ...Petitioner Versus Regional Administrative Committee and others ...Respondents Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri M.P. Gupta Counsel for the Respondents: Sri O.P. Singh Sri S.K. Rai Constitution of India-Article 226dismissal order - a bank operates on public confidence and hence the highest degree of discipline and integrity and discipline is required from bank employees as compared to other employees, otherwise the public will lose confidence in the Bank and there may be a run on the bank to withdraw money. Sufficient compliance of natural justice (Held- para 14) We have perused the appellate order also and find no illegality in the same. The finding of fact has been recorded by both the authorities that the petitioner has embezzled the amount in question by passing farzi resolution which was a serious misconduct. In our opinion sufficient opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. As stated above the rules of natural justice are not a straight jacket formula and it all depends on the facts of each case whether the hearing was adequate or not. Case law referred- 1981 UPLBEC 393 AIR 1973 SC 1260 AIR 2001 SC 24 http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in 1 All] Sankatha Prasad Singh Vs. Regional Administrative Committee and others 97 1994(5) JT 280 2000(3) UPLBEC 193 (Delivered by Hon'ble M. Katju,J) 1. This writ petition has been filed against the dismissal order dated 26.6.1994 Annexure 11 to the writ petition and the appellate order dated 11.2.1999 Annexure 16 to the writ petition. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The petitioner has alleged that he was appointed in the Cooperative department as cadre secretary in 1976 after screening. He has further alleged that his work and conduct has been good. He was posted in various places as mentioned in paragraphs 5,6 and 7 to the writ petition. The present dispute relates to Hallia where the petitioner was posted at Sikta Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Limited, block Hallia, district Mirzapur. 4. The petitioner had opened his personal SB Account in the head quarter branch of District Cooperative Bank Ltd. Mirzapur. The account number 3173 which is still pending in the said head quarter branch. The petitioner opened another S.B. account in Hallia branch of District Cooperative Bank at Mirzapur where the respondent no. 3 was posted as Branch Manager on 2.1.1998. The petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.57,000/- in S.B. account Hallia Branch. 5. It is alleged in paragraph 10 of the petition that the Branch Manager prepared a transfer voucher for head quarter branch of this amount on the same day and delivered the transfer voucher to the petitioner. It is further alleged that in the evening of the same day the Branch Manager visited the society of the petitioner and obtained back the transfer voucher of Rs.57,000/- which was made for head quarter branch of the District Cooperative Bank, Mirzapur and got it and has cancelled the same. It is alleged that in the pass book he corrected the entry mentioning cash deposit of Rs.57,000/- and the credit balance was shown as Rs.1,18,425.27. Photocopy of the passbook of the petitioner bearing A/C number 3173 is Annexure 1 to the writ petition. 6. In paragraph 11 of the writ petition it is alleged that the respondent no. 3 the then Branch Manager, Hallia prepared a transfer voucher and cancelled the same on 2.1.1998 which has been prepared and made for A/c No. 3173 opened at Mirzapur head quarter branch of the Bank. It is alleged that the petitioner managed to obtain a copy of the voucher from District Cooperative Bank, true copy of which is Annexure 2 to the writ petition. In paragraph 12 of the writ petition it is alleged that the District Cooperative Bank entered in the personal ledger of the petitioner by amendment vide Annexure 3 to the writ petition. During the preparation of the balance sheet of the Bank on 30.6.1988 this irregularity was notice against the amount of Rs.57,000/- which was in excess in the deposit side. It is alleged in paragraph 14 of the writ petition that the respondent no. 3 with malafide intention to show the expenditure of Rs.57,000/- again visited the society of the petitioner and he compelled the petitioner to get the resolution prepared by the respondent no. 3 and deliver the same to him. True copy of the said resolution is Annexure 4 to the http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in 98 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003 writ petition. In paragraph 15 of the writ petition it is alleged that this resolution has not been entered in any proceeding book of the society and it was prepared under duress of the Branch Manager. 7. In paragraph 16 of the writ petition it is alleged that the petitioner has sent a letter dated 5.7.1988 stating that the so-called resolution dated 29.6.1988 be quashed vide Annexure 5. Thereafter the petitioner sent a letter dated 19.2.1992 vide Annexure 6 to the writ petition. Thereafter he sent another letter dated 9.3.1992 stating that he has not done any default vide Annexure 7 to the writ petition. 8. In paragraph 20 of the writ petition it is alleged that a charge sheet dated 16.6.1993 was given to the petitioner making allegation against the petitioner regarding over draft of Rs.57,000/-. True copy of the charge sheet is Annexure 8 to the writ petition. In paragraph 21 of the writ petition it is alleged that the petitioner wrote a letter dated 30.6.1993 demanding the proof of charges vide Annexure 9 to the writ petition. However, when no proof was submitted he sent his reply dated 21.7.1993 vide Annexure 10 to the writ petition. In paragraph 24 of the writ petition it is alleged that an enquiry was held behind the back of the petitioner and witnesses were not examined in his presence nor was he allowed to crossexamine the witnesses and he was not given personal hearing. It is alleged that this was exparte enquiry. The petitioner was served a dismissal order dated 26.6.1994 vide Annexure 11 to the writ petition. Against that order he filed an appeal which has been dismissed on 11.2.1999 vide Annexure 16 to the writ petition. Hence this writ petition. 9. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent no. 2 to 4. In paragraph 6 of the same it is alleged that an amount of Rs.57,000/- was deposited in the bank by the petitioner but the amount related to Sadhan Sahkari Samiti Sikta which has been deposited by the petitioner in his own bank account. In paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit it is alleged that the petitioner in collusion with the Branch Manager of the Bank of Hallia branch was trying to embezzle Rs.57,000/- from Sadhan Sahkari Samiti, Sikta. In paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit it is alleged that the petitioner in collusion with the Branch Manager prepared a false and fabricated resolution and embezzled Rs.57,000/- from the society. In paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit it is stated that the enquiry has been conducted and charge sheet has been issued to the petitioner on 16.6.1993. In paragraph 16 of the counter affidavit it is alleged that the charge sheet was issued and time was given to submit his explanation and the charge of embezzlement was clearly proved. 10. I have also perused the rejoinder affidavit. In paragraph 15 of the same it has been reiterated that no enquiry was conducted against the petitioner and the entire action was done behind the back of the petitioner and he was not allowed to cross examine the witnesses and the alleged enquiry was exparte. 11. In this case the real question is whether the rules of natural justice were complied with or not before passing the impugned dismissal order. http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in 1 All] Sankatha Prasad Singh Vs. Regional Administrative Committee and others 99 12. It is settled law that the rule of natural justice are not a straight jacket formula. The facts of each case have to be seen in order to determine whether the principles of natural justice have been violated. In the present case there were serious allegations of embezzlement against the petitioner and he was given a charge sheet dated 16.6.1993 vide Annexure 8 to the writ petition. In this reply dated 22.7.1993 Annexure 10 to the writ petition the petitioner denied the charges and stated that he does not want to produce any witness but he wants an opportunity of personal hearing. He further alleged that there was some conspiracy against him. 13. In the impugned dismissal order dated 26.6.1994 Annexure 11 to the writ petition it has been stated that the petitioner did not want to produce any witness but wanted personal hearing, and hence 9.11.1993 was fixed for personal hearing before the committee. However, the petitioner did not appear before the Committee on that date hence the Committee gave another opportunity of personal hearing and fixed 24.12.1993 for the same and on that date the petitioner was heard but he produced no proof in support of his version. It was found that in collusion with the Branch Manager, Hallia the petitioner on 2.1.1988 had got an over-draft of Rs.57,000/- and has embezzled this amount. In order to conceal this embezzlement the petitioner has misused his office as Secretary of the Society and he has got a fictitious resolution of Sikta Saghan Sahkari Samiti passed on 29.6.1988 in his signature and seal of the society and had got the above amount debited in the account of the Samiti and credited to his account. The petitioner was given another show cause notice on 20.1.1994 but he gave no reply to the same. Hence on 28.2.1994 the District Administrative Committee passed a resolution directing him to deposit the said amount failing which he will be dismissed from service and an FIR will be lodged against him. Despite the said resolution the petitioner never deposited the aforesaid amount which he has embezzled. Hence on 26.6.1994 the District Administrative Committee taking a serious notice of this directed realization of the embezzled amount with interest and to lodge an FIR against the petitioner. The petitioner filed an appeal against the said order which was dismissed on 11.2.1999 vide Annexure 16 to the writ petition. 14. We have perused the appellate order also and find no illegality in the same. The finding of fact has been recorded by both the authorities that the petitioner has embezzled the amount in question by passing farzi resolution which was a serious misconduct. In our opinion sufficient opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. As stated above the rules of natural justice are not a straight jacket formula and it all depends on the facts of each case whether the hearing was adequate or not, vide Maharashtra State Financial Corporation vs. M/s Suvarna Board Mills, J.T. 1994(5) S.C 280. 15. In Kamal Singh Vs. Chancellor 1981 UPLBEC 393 and Hira Nath vs. Rajendra Medical College A.I.R. 1973 SC 1260 it has been held that the principles of natural justice cannot be applied mechanically without considering the facts of each case. In Kumaun Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. Vs. G.S. Pant. AIR 2001 S.C. 24 it was held that the doctrine of natural justice are flexible. In 1994 (5) http://www.allahabadhighcourt.nic.in 100 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2003 JT 280 Maharashtra State Financial Corporation vs. M/s Suvarna Board Mills it was held by the Supreme Court that where a notice was issued calling upon the petitioner to pay the dues failing which possession of his property will be taken, no other show cause notice is required before taking possession. It has been held in several decisions of this Court vide Writ Petition No. 7538 of 2001 Prakash Chandra Bansal vs. General Manage decided on 13.12.2001, writ petition no. 19658 of 2001 K.K. Singh Vs. Gomti Gramin Bank decided on 19.12.2001, Ram Prakash vs. Allahabad Bank 2000(3) UPLBEC 193 etc. that a bank operates on public confidence and hence the highest degree of discipline and integrity is required to be maintained by its employees in order to maintain public confidence in the Bank. Hence greater integrity and discipline is required from bank employees as compared to other employees, otherwise the public will lose confidence in the Bank and there may be a run on the Bank to withdraw money. In the present case we are satisfied that there was sufficient compliance of natural justice. 16. In view of the above we find no merit in this petition and it is dismissed accordingly. Interim order if any is vacated. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 3.12.2002 BEFORE THE HON'BLE S.N. SRIVASTAVA, J. Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 48308 of 2002 Sri Latoori Singh ...Petitioner Versus Chairman, Aligarh Gramin Bank, Aligarh ...Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri I.M. Tripathi Counsel for the Respondent: Sri Yashwant Verma Aligarh Gramin Bank (Officer and Employees) Regulation 2000 Reg. 38 Part I- Domestic Enquiry- delinquent employee asked to engaged the defensive representative of an officer not belonging to the Bank in question- held the claim can not be rejected. Held- Para 10 As a result of the foregoing discussions, I converge to the view that the petitioner has a right to engage Sri R.P. Singh or any officer from Central Bank of India Aligarh or any other Branch to defend and represent him in the enquiry which is already afoot. The petition is allowed in part in terms of the above with no order as to costs. Case Law discussed AIR 1983 SC-454 AIR 1983 SC-109 AIR 1991 SC 1221 2001 (a) SCC-540 1999 (i) SCC-626 (Delivered by Hon'ble S.N. Srivastava, J.) 1. Denial of assistance of law assistant to represent and defend the