# Sharda Prasad Mishra v. A.G.M., Union Bank of India , Bombay& others

- **Citation:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad #39516
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2000
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sharda-prasad-mishra-v-a-g-m-union-bank-of-india-bombay-others-39516
- **Pages:** 2

## Text

2ALL] Sharda Prasad Mishra V A.G.M., Union Bank of India , Bombay& others 23
Stenographer. Admittedly, the petitioner
was appointed as Stenographer on daily wage
basis in March 1981, and he has been in
continuous service since then i.e. for more
then 18 years.

3. In our opinion, the state government
cannot act arbitrarily in the matters relating to
temporary or daily wage employees. No doubt
there is a principle in service law that a
temporary employee has no right to the post,
but this principle has to be considered along
with the other legal principle that the State
cannot act arbitrarily. In the case of Smt.
Maneka Gandhi Vs.Union of India and
another ,AIR 1978 SC 597 it has been held by
a7 judge constitution Bench decision of the
supreme court that the State Government can
not act arbitrarily as arbitranuons violates
Art.14 of the constetion. In our opinion to
keep a person on daily wage basis for 18 year
is wholly arbitrary, Hence on the facts and
circumstances of the case, we direct that the
petitioner be regularised within a month from
the date of production of the certified copy of
this order and he shall be paid regular salary
thereafter.

4. With the above observations, the
petition is disposed of.

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·%/( %,12' .80$5 52< -
7+( +21·%/( %,12' .80$5 52< -
7+( +21·%/( /$.6+0, %,+$5, -
7+( +21·%/( /$.6+0, %,+$5, -

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW SHWLWLRQ QR RI

6KDUGD 3UDVDG 0LVKUD
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
$VVLVWDQW *HQHUDO 0DQDJHU 8QLRQ %DQN RI
,QGLD &HQWUDO RIILFH SHUVRQDO 'HSRUWPHQW

9LGKDQ
6DEKD 0DUJ 1DULPDQ SRLQW
%RPED\

$SSHOODWH
$XWKRULW\
DQG
RWKHUV
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH SHWLWLRQHU
6KUL $ZDGKHVK .XPDU 6LQJK
6KUL 61 6LQJK
6KUL .3 $JUDZDO
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
6&
6KUL 6DPLU 6KDUPD
6KUL 95 $JUDZDO

&RQVWLWXWLRQ
RI
,QGLD
$UWLFOH

7KH
HQTXLU\ RIILFHU FRPSOHWHO\ H[RQHUDWHG WKH
SHWLWLRQHU
EXW
WKH
LPSXJQHG
RUGHU
ZDV
SDVVHG E\ WKH 'LVFLSOLQDU\ $XWKRULW\ ZLWKRXW
UHFRUGHG DQ\ UHDVRQV DV WR ZK\ LW LV GLIIHULQJ
IURP WKH UHSRUW RI WKH (QTXLU\ RIILFHU
6LQFH
WKH
'LVFLSOLQDU\
$XWKRULW\
KDV
QRW
UHFRUGHG DQ\ UHDVRQ IRU GLIIHULQJ IURP WKH
UHSRUWV VXEPLWWHG E\ WKH (QTXLU\ RIILFHU
H[RQHUDWLQJ KLP RI WKH FKDUJHV DQG KDG
SURFHHGHG
WR
LPSRVH
WKH
SHQDOW\
RI
UHGXFWLRQ RI KLV VSD\ E\ RQH VWDJH LQ WKH
WLPH VFDOH RI SD\ DSSOLFDEOH WR KLP LWV
YDOLGLW\ FDQQRW EH VXVWDLQHG
+HOG
By the court

A number of prayers been made in this
writ petition, but having gone through the
pleadings of the parties and heard Sri K.P.
Agarwal learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioner and sri V.R. Agrawal learned
counsel
appearing
on
behalf
of
the
Respondent, we find that the real question is
as to whether that memorandum, as contained
in Annexure-15 to the writ petition, which
reads as follows should be should quashed by
us or not:-
"This has reference to the explanation date
28.12.1993 submitted by Shri S. P. Mishra in
reply to memorandum no CO:IRD:9034/93
dated 20.12.93.
The aforesaid explanation dated 28.12.93
submitted by Shri Mishra is not found
satisfactory and convincing. I, therefore, hold
Sri Mishra guilty of the resons enumerated in
memorandum no CO: IRD: 9034/93 dated
20.12.93:
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