ANIL GILURKERversusBILASPUR RAIPUR KSHETRIA GRAMIN BANK & ANR.

                        [201.1] 12 S.C.R. 618


A                         ANIL GILURKER
                                  v.
      BILASPUR RAIPUR KSHETRIA GRAMIN BANK & ANR.
             (Civil Appeal Nos. 7864-7865 of 2011)
                       SEPTEMBER 15, 2011
B
          [R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND A.K. PATNAIK, JJ.]

         Service Law - Dismissal from service - Allegation
    against appellant, Branch Manager in the Bank that he
C   sanctioned and distributed loans to brick manufacturing units
    but did not disburse the entire loan amount to the borrowers
    and misappropriated part of the loan amount - Issuance of
    charge-sheet - Punishment of removal of service imposed
    by the disciplinary authority and the same was upheld by the
D   appellate authority- Writ Petition by appellant - Single Judge
    of the High Court holding that there were no specific charges
    in the charge-sheet, quashed the order of removal from
    service and issued direction for reinstatement of the appellant
    in service with continuity in service - Division Bench of the
E   High Court directed the disciplinary authority to consider the
    inquiry report, the evidence recorded by the Enquiry Officer
    and the documents relied upon in the charge-sheet and take
    a fresh decision in accordance with law - On appeal, held:
    Charges should be specific, definite and giving details of the
F   incident which formed the basis of charges and no enquiry
    can be sustained on vague charges - On facts, a plain reading
    of the charges and the statement of imputations show that
    only vague allegations were made against the appellant - No
    statement of imputations giving the particulars of the loan
G   accounts or the names of the borrowers, the amounts of loans
    sanctioned, disbursed and misappropriated were furnished to
    the appellant - Thus, the order of the Division Bench is set
    aside and that of the Single Judge is restored - Direction of
    the Single Judge to pay Rs. 1.5 lacs to the appellant as
H                                618
 ANIL GILURKER v. BILASPUR RAIPUR KSHETRIA 619
            GRAMIN BANK & ANR.

compensation in lieu of arrears of salary is deleted.          A
     Surath Chandra Chakrabarty v. State of West Bengal
(1970) 3 SCC 548: 1971 (3) SCR 1; Sawai Singh v. State of
Rajasthan (1986) 3 SCC 454: 1986 (2) SCR 957; Union of
India and Ors. v. Gyan Chand Chattar (2009) 12 SCC 78:         B
2009 (10 ) SCR 124 - referred to.

                     Case Law Reference:

    1971 (3) SCR 1            Referred to          Para 4
    1986 (2) SCR 957          Referred to          Para 4      c
    2009 (10) SCR 124         Referred to          Para 4

    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
7864-7865 of 2011.
                                                               D
    From the Judgment & Order dated 28.04.2010 of the High
Court of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Seat at Jabalpur, M.P.
Passed in W.A. Nps. 57 and 82 of 2010.                   _

    Ravindra Shrivastava, Anup Jain, Kunal Verma for the       E
Appellant.

   Akshat Shrivastava, P.P. Singh, Pooja Shrivastava for the
Respondents.

    The following order of the Court was delivered by          F

                           ORDER

    A. K. PATNAIK, J. 1. Leave granted.

     2. These are appeals against the order dated 28.04.2010   G
of the Division Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court in Writ
Appeal No.57 of 2010 and Writ Appeal No.82 of 2010.

    3. The facts very briefly are that on 03.05.1984 the
appellant was appointed as a Branch Manager in the Bilaspur    H
    620      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2011) 12 S.C.R.


A Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank by way of direct recruitment and
   he successfully completed the period of probation. While he
  was working on the post of Branch Manager in Branch Patewa,
  he sanctioned and distributed loans to a large number of brick
  manufacturing units under the Integrated Gram Development
B Programme. The disciplinary authority placed the appellant
  under suspension and issued a charge-sheet dated
   31.01.1989 against him for misconduct punishable under
  Regulation 30(1) of the Staff Service Regulations. In the charge-
  sheet, it was alleged that the appellant sanctioned and
c distributed loans to a large number of brick manufacturing units
  in a very short period of time, but had not in fact disbursed the
  entire loan amount to the borrowers and part of the loan amount
  was misappropriated by him. The appellant was asked to
  submit his written defence in reply to the charges. On
   11.02.1989, the appellant submitted his written defence
0
  denying the allegations made in the charge-sheet. An Inquiry
  Officer enquired into the charges against the appellant and
  submitted his report with a finding that the witnesses produced
  by the Bank had·not said that what was actually advanced was
  less than the loan amount, and although there were some
E serious irregularities, the charge of financial corruption against
  the appellant had not been proved. The disciplinary authority
  in his order dated 10.09.1991 disagreed with the findings of
  the Inquiry Officer and held that the charge of financial corruption
  against the appellant had been proved and that the appellant
F had not only violated the Rules of the Bank, but had also tried
  to cause financial loss to the Bank and by abusing his position,
  had lowered down the reputation of the Bank. In the order dated
  10.09.1991, the disciplinary authority proposed to impose the
  punishment of removal of the appellant along with forfeiture of
G the contribution of the Bank to the Provident Fund of the
  appellant under Section 50(1) of the Staff Regulations. By the
  order dated 10.09.1991, the disciplinary authority directed that
  a copy of the order and report of the Inquiry Officer be sent to
  the appellant to show-cause why he should not be punished as
H
 ANIL GILURKER v. BILASPUR RAIPUR KSHETRIA 621
     GRAMIN BANK & ANR. [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
proposed. On 18.09.1991, the appellant submitted his reply to         A
the show-cause notice and on 25.11.1991, the disciplinary
authority passed the order of removal. Aggrieved, the appellant
filed an appeal against the order of the disciplinary authority,
but the appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority.
                                                                      8
     4. The appellant then filed a Writ Petition before the
Madhya Pradesh High Court challenging the order of removal
passed by the disciplinary authority. After the reorganization of
the Madhya Pradesh in the year 2000, the Writ Petition was
transferred to the Chhattisgarh High Court and was heard by a
learned Single Judge of the Chhattisgarh High Court. The              C
learned Single Judge in his judgment dated 22.02.2010 found
that in the charge-sheet, there is no reference to any specific
documents or to the names of the persons who had not been
given the loan amounts and accordingly took the view that in
the charge-sheet there were no specific charges. Relying on           D
the decisions of this Court in Surath Chandra Chakrabarty v.
State of West Bengal [(1970) 3 SCC 548], Sawai Singh v.
State of Rajasthan [(1986) 3 SCC 454] and Union of India &
Ors. v. Gyan Chand Chattar ((2009) 12 SCC 78], the learned
Single Judge held that when the charges levelled against the          E
delinquent officer in the charge-sheet were vague and not
specific and the entire enquiry is vitiated. The learned Single
Judge quashed the orders of the disciplinary authority and the
appellate authority and directed reinstatement of the appellant
in service with continuity in service and without loss of seniority   F
in the post to which he would be entitled to. The learned Single
Judge further directed that the appellant will be entitled to
compensation of Rs.1.5 lacs in lieu of arrears of his salary.

     5. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge
granting only Rs.1.5 lacs as compensation in lieu of arrears of G
salary, the appellant filed Writ Appeal No.57 of 2010 and
aggrieved by the impugned order of learned Single Judge in
the Writ Petition quashing the orders of the disciplinary authority

                                                                      H
    622     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2011] 12 S.C.R.

A and the appellate authority, the respondents filed Writ Appeal
  No.82 of 2010. After hearing the Writ Appeals, the Division
  Bench of the Chhattisgarh High Court held in the impugned
  order that the charges against the appellant as described in
  the charge-sheet were not vague as on the basis of documents
B mentioned in the charge-sheet, it has been alleged that the
  appellant had sanctioned the loans and had shown the loans
  only on paper but had not actually disbursed the loans to the
  borrowers. The Division Bench of the High Court, however, held
  that as the disciplinary authority had disagreed with the findings
c in the inquiry report, ·he should have furnished his reasons for
  the disagreement to the appellant before passing the order of
  punishment. The Division Bench of the High Court further held
  that the disciplinary authority cannot conduct further enquiry suo
  motu to fill up the lacuna in the enquiry. The Division Bench of
  the High Court allowed both the appeals and directed that the
0
  disciplinary authority will consider the inquiry report, the
  evidence recorded by the Enquiry OffiC'er and the documents
  relied upon in the charge-sheet and take a fresh decision in
  accordance with law. The Division· Bench of the High Court
  further observed in the impugned order that if the disciplinary
E authority takes a view on reconsideration of the matter not to
  take any further action against the appellant, he shall be given
  all the consequential benefits along with reinstatement.

       6. We have heard Mr. Ravindra Shrivastava, learned
F counsel for the appellant and Mr. Akshat Shrivastava, learned
  counsel for the respondents, and we are of the considered
  opinion that the Division Bench of the High Court was not
  correct in taking a view in the impugned order that the charges
  against the appellant were not vague. The English translation
G of the charges and the statement of imputations extracted from
  the charge-sheet dated 31.01.1989 served on the appellant is
  reproduced hereinbelow:


H
 ANIL GILURKER v. BILASPUR RAIPUR KSHETRIA 623
     GRAMIN BANK & ANR. [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]

          Charge Sheet No. D/A/756 dated 31.1.89                     A

. Statement of imputations                 Charge
 Whila working as Branch          Tempted with his malafide
 Manager in Branch Patewa, in     intention serious violation of
 the first quarter of the year    the Rules and interests of the     B
 1988, have sanctioned and        Bank and Administration, in
 distributed loan of brick        a very short period of time
 manufacturing in large number    sanction the loan of Brick
 under the Integrated Gram        manufacturing in large scale
 Development Programme by         under the "I. Gram. Dev.           c
 committing unauthorized          Prog." And distributed and
 irregularities contrary to the   in most of the loan cases,
 rules and interest of the bank   without actually distribution
 and administration. In most of   of the entire loan amount,
 these loan cases you have        you have completed the             D
 shown cash distribution of the   documentary proceedings,
 entire loan and has given only   and showing the cash
 one minor__part of the loan      distribution of the entir~ loan
 amount to-· the Borrower in      amount, only a minor· share
 cash and from the balance        of the loan has been given         E
 amount, some amount. has         cash to the concerned
 been deposited in their saving   borrower and from the
 accounts           (deducting    remaining amount some
 contribution amount equivalent   amount has been deposited
 to the amount for closing the     in the account of the             F
 loan account) and the            borrower and the balance
 remaining amount has been         amount in connivance with
 grabbed· by you. branch          otlier persons have been
 employees and in collusions       grabbed. With the intention
 with the Gram Sewaks. After a     to cover up your this act, only
                                                                     G
 very little time adjusting the    after a few time of the loan
 contribution amount in these      distribution, you have
 loan accounts, you have          withdrawn the amount from
 withdrawn the amount from the     the saving accounts of the
 Saving Accounts of the            concerned borrowers and
                                                                     H
    624      SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2011] 12 S.C.R.


A   concerned borrowers, you         most of the accounts have
    have closed most of the loan     been closed before time. As
    accounts much before the time    such for the fulfillment of your
    fixed for the repayment.         personal gain you have
                                     deliberately misused the
B                                    position of your post and has
                                     committed             financial
                                     corruption in large scale.
                                     From which cause serious
                                     shock the interests of the
c                                    bank administration and the
                                     borrower also, the reputation
                                     of the bank has also been
                                     lowered down. Your this act
                                     is a misconduct under
D                                    Sections 17, 19 and 30(1) of
                                     the Employees Collection
                                     Service Regulations.

       7. A cplain reading of the charges and the statement of
  imputations reproduced above would show that only vague
E allegations were made against the appellant that he had
  sanctioned loans to a large number of brick manufacturing units
  by committing irregularities, but did not disburse the entire loan
  amount to the borrowers and while a portion of the loan amount
  was deposited in the account of the borrowers, the balance was
F misappropriated by him and others. The details of the loan
  accounts or the names of the borrowers have not been
  mentioned in the charges. The amounts of loan which were
  sanctioned and the amounts which were actually disbursed to
  the borrowers and the amounts alleged to have been
G misappropriated by the appellant have not been mentioned.

       8. We also find that along with the charge-sheet dated
  31.01.1989 no statement of imputations giving the particulars
  of the loan accounts or the names of the borrowers, the amounts
H of loans sanctioned, disbursed and misappropriated were
 ANIL GILURKER v. BILASPUR RAIPUR KSHETRIA                  625
     GRAMIN BANK & ANR. [A.K. PATNAIK, J.]
furnished to the appellant, and yet the disciplinary authority has A
called upon the appellant to submit his written defence
statement in reply to the charges. We fail to appreciate how
the appellant could have submitted his written statement in
defence in respect of the charges and how a fair enquiry could
be held unless he was furnished with the particulars of the loan 8
accounts or the names of the borrowers, the amounts of loan
sanctioned, the amounts actually disbursed and the amounts
misappropriated were also furnished in the charge-sheet.

   9. As has been held by this Court in Surath Chandra
Chakrabarty v. State of West Bengal (supra):           C

    "5 ...... The grounds on which it is proposed to take action
    have to be reduced to the form of a definite charge or
    charges which have to be communicated to the person
    charged together with a statement of the allegations on [J
    which each charge is based and any other circumstance'
    which it is proposed to be taken into consideration in
    passing orders has also tQ be stated. This rule embodies
    a principle which is one of the basic contents of a
    reasonable or adequate opportunity for defending oneself.
    If a person is not told clearly and definitely what the
    allegation~ are on which the charges preferred against him
    are founded he cannot possibly, by projecting his own
    imagination, discover all the facts and circumstances that
    may be in the contemplation of the authorities to be F-
    established against him .... ."

      10. This position of law has been reiterated in the recent.
case of Union of India & Ors. v. Gyan Chand Chattar (supra)
and in Para 35 of the judgment as reported in the sec, this
Court has observed that the law can be summarized that an G
enquiry is to be conducted against any person giving strict
adherence to the statutory provisions and principles of natural
justice and the charges should be specific, definite and giving
details of the incident which formed the basis of charges and
no enquiry can be sustained on vague charges.                     H
    626     SUPREME COURT REPORTS                [2011] 12 S.C.R.

A        11. We, therefore, allow these appeals, set aside the
    impugned order of the Division Bench and restore the order of
    the learned Single Judge. Considering the peculiar facts and
    circumstances, we delete the direction of the learned Single
    Judge to pay Rs.1.5 lacs to the appellant as compensation in
s   lieu of arrears of salary and we are also not inclined to grant
    any backwages to the appellant. There shall be no order as to
    costs.
    N.J.                                        Appeals allowed.