Supreme Court of India
CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH & ORS.versusCHAIRMAN, PURVANCHAL GRAMIN BANK & ORS.
- Citation
- 2008 INSC 244
- Decided
- 22 February 2008
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- P P NAOLEKAR
Holding
The Supreme Court held that the appellants failed to establish specific, credible allegations of mala fide or bias, and therefore the High Court’s dismissal of the writ petition was affirmed.
Summary
The appellants, who had unsuccessfully appeared for a written promotion test conducted by the Institute of Banking Personnel Selection for posts in Purvanchal Gramin Bank, alleged that the then Chairman (respondent No.10) acted with mala fide intent by favouring his brother and cousin, and that the State Government’s ex parte inquiry into the bank’s mismanagement was invalid. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the examining body was not a party and that the allegations of bias were unsubstantiated. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined whether the burden of proving mala fide was met, whether the State Government could control a bank governed by Section 29 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976, and whether the Chairman’s transfer affected the result. Finding the allegations vague, indefinite and unsupported by evidence, and noting that the inquiry was beyond the State’s jurisdiction, the Court upheld the High Court’s decision. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
Issues considered
- Whether the appellants sufficiently pleaded and proved allegations of mala fide and bias against the Chairman in the promotion test.
- Whether the State Government’s ex parte inquiry into the Gramin Bank’s management is valid under Section 29 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976.
- Whether the examining body (Banking Institute, Mumbai) must be made a party to the writ petition.
- Whether the burden of proving bias rests heavily on the petitioner and if a real danger of bias exists.
- Whether the Chairman’s transfer and continued charge invalidate the declaration of test results.
Legislation cited
- Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976s. 29, s. 3, s. 6(2)
Subjects
mala fidebiasadministrative lawnatural justiceregional rural banksappointment and promotionjudicial reviewburden of proofex parte inquirynepotismselection process
Judgment
[2008] 3 S.C.R. 287
-t
CHANDRA PRAKASH SINGH & ORS. A
v.
CHAIRMAN, PURVANCHAL GRAMIN BANK & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No.1495 of 2008)
FEBRUARY 22, 2008
B
[P.P. NAOLEKAR & LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.]
Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 : s.29 - Malafide and
arbitrariness - Burden to prove - Result of written test for post
of officer in Gramin Bank challenged by unsuccessful c
candidates on the ground of pias and ma/a tides by the then
Chairman of Bank - High Court ordered State Government to
conduct inquiry - Inquiry committee submitted report
regarding improper functioning of Bank - High Court dismissed
writ petition - On appeal, held: Inquiry ordered to be conducted
·-I D
by State Government in regard to mismanagement and other
irregularities of Bank, was ex pa rte without giving any intimation
to the Board of Directors of the Bank - State Government ex
facie does not exercise any control over the Gramin Bank as
it is governed by the policies of Central Government under
s. 29 - Also examining body not made party in writ petition - E
Burden of proving bias is heavy on the person who alleges it-
No specific and definite real danger of bias has been made to
, indicate how Chairman was in a position to influence or
Jo.- manipulate the result of the written test - Hence, interference
with the order of High Court not warranted. F
The respondent Gramin Bank was constituted under
s.3 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976. In the year 2001,
47 posts of Scale II officer and 16 posts of Scale I officer
were required to be filled in the Gramin Bank. The Board
G
of Directors of the Gramin Bank approved the holding of
v the written examination by the Institute of Banking
I Personnel Selection, Mumbai for filling up these posts.
All the appellants appeared at the written test held on
287 H
288 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R.
A 18.8.2002 without any protest. The names of appellants
did not appear in the list of successful candidates.
The appellants filed writ petition in the High Court
praying for quashing of the test held on 18.08.2002 on
the ground that the test was conducted by the then
8 Chairman of the Gramin Bank, Respondent No.10, in spite
of the fact that his real brother and cousin who were
working as clerk-cum-cashiers, were also the candidates
for promotion to the post of officer Scale I. Respondent
No.10 on 28.05.2004 was transferred but he still declared
C the result of the examination on 1.6.2004. The State
Government appointed inquiry committee which
submitted its report on 18.07.2004.
The two member committee appointed by the State
Government in its report made certain observations that
0
respondent No.10 had declared the result of the written
test on 1.6.2004, despite the fact that he stood transferred
on 28.5.2004, the answer-sheets should not have been
sent to the Banking Institute, Mumbai, by courier service
and the answer-sheets and the question papers were not
E kept in the joint custody, but the respondent No.10 had
kept them in his own custody and that one candidate had
appeared at the examination even though he was on leave
are not substantiated by any evidence.
F The appellants prayed that in view of the report
submitted against improper functioning of the officers of
the Gramin Bank, the examinations should be cancelled
and fresh examinations be conducted. As per records,
after the written test was held on 1'8.08.2002, the Workers'
G Association of the Gramin Bank had filed a civil suit in
which an injunction was granted and the result of the
written test was not declared. On 31.05.2004, the trial. Court .,.
rejected the application for grant of temporary injunction. \
Thereafter the candidates were called for interview after
declaration of the result of the written test.
H
CHANDRA P. SINGH & ORS. v. CHAIRMAN, 289
PURVANCHAL GRAMIN BANK & ORS.
The High Court dismissed the writ petition of the A
appellants holding that the Banking Institute, Mumbai, an
examining body, was not a party in writ petition; that the
appellants have failed to prove allegation of mala fide
against respondent no. 1O; that the appellants are
estopped from challenging. the examination held on s
18.8.2002 as they had participated in the said
examination; that the appellants were members of
Workers' Union who filed the suit in the trial Court and as
such they were playing hide and seek with the Court.
Hence the present appeal. c
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1. The merit list of the successful candidates
was prepared by the Banking Institute, Mumbai which was
sent to the Gramin Bank. The list containing the names of
0
the selected candidates was placed on the Notice Board
by respondent No.10 being Chairman of the Bank on
1.6.2004. In between the holding of the written test on
18.8.2002 and placing the select list of the successful
candidates on the notice board on 1.6.2004, there was an
interim injunction order operating against the Gramin E
.' Bank not to declare the result passed by the Civil Court
in suit filed by the Workers' Association of the Gramin
Bank wl'!ich was subsequently vacated on 31.5.2004
~·. permitting the Gramin Bank to hold the interview after
declaration of the result of the written test. Respondent F
No.1 O was transferred on 28.5.2004 but he had not
relinquished the charge till the date of declaring the result
of the written test. It is also established on record that on
7.6.2004, the successor Chairman of respondent No.10
placed the same merit list of the successful candidates G
on the Notice Board for the inspection of the candidates.
v The names of the appellants did not appear in the said
i
select list. The personal interviews of the successful
candidates were held on 23/24.9.2004. The inquiry ordered
to be conducted by the State Government in regard to H
290 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R.
~
A the mismanagement and other irregularities etc. of the
Gramin Bank, was ex parte without giving any intimation
to the Board of Directors of the Gramin Bank. The State
Government ex facie does not exercise any control over
the Gramin Bank since under s.29 of the Regional Rural
B Banks Act, the Gramin Bank is governed by the policies
of the Central Government. The appellants have not made
the Banking Institute, Mumbai, who conducted the .
examination, as party in writ petition nor any allegation of
mala fide or mal-practice has been alleged against the
institution. The appellants have also not made brother
c and cousin, respectively of the respondent No.10 as
parties in the writ· petition who, admittedly, were the
successful candidates in the written test for the posts in
question. The written test was not conducted by
respondent no.10 nor was he heading the selection
D
committee. [Para 17] [304-C-H; 305-A-D]
State of Punjab v. VK. Khanna and Ors. (2001) 2 SCC
330; Ohampur Sugar (Kashipur) Ltd. v. State of Uttaranchal
and Ors. (2007) 8 SCC 418- Relied on
E Jitendra Kumar & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Anr 2007
(14) SCALE 125 - distinguished
Ashok Kumar Yadav & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors
(1985) 4 SCC 417 and Krishna Yadav and Anr v. State of
....
F Haryana & Ors (1994) 4 SCC 165 - referred to ' .
2. The allegations by appellants were absolutely
vague, indefinite and did not contain sufficient material
as required under law in support thereof. The appellants
have not established on record that respondent No.10,
G the then Chairman, was an instrument in getting his
brother and cousin through in the written examination and
later on it was under his influence that the Selection ...I
Committee had selected his two relatives for the posts in
question. [Para 17] [305-G-H]
H
..
CHANDRA P. SINGH & ORS. v. CHAIRMAN, 291
PURVANCHAL GRAMIN BANK & ORS.
Tara Chand Khatri vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & A
Ors. AIR 1977 SC 567; E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu
& Anr. AIR 1874 SC 555, Mis. Sukhwinder Pal Bipan Kumar &
Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors. AIR 1982 SC 65 and M.
~·
Sankaranarayanan, /AS v. State of Karnataka & Ors. AIR 1993
SC 763 - relied on B
3. The burden of proving mala fide is very heavy on
the person who alleges it. Mere allegation is not enough.
Party making such allegations is under the legal
obligation to place specific materials before the Court to
substantiate the said allegations. There has to be very c
strong and convincing evidence to establish the
allegations of mala tides specifically and definitely alleged
in the petition as the same cannot merely be presumed.
The presumption under law is in favour of the bona fides
of the order unless contradicted by acceptable material. D
In the present case, no specific and definite real danger
of bias has been made against respondent no.10 to
indicate how he was in a position to influence or
manipulate the result of the written test conducted by the
Banking Institute, Mumbai. There are no specific pleadings E
nor any proof thereof in the writ petition filed by the
, appellants. In such circumstances, the Court is under no
obligation to entertain the pleas of mala fide or
arbitrariness. [Para 19] [306-F-H; 307-A]
)...
4. The mere assertion of the appellants that one F
selected candidate could not have appeared in the written
test, because during the relevant time he was on leave, in
the absence of any supporting evidence cannot be
accepted. Further, no infirmity or illegality appears to have
been committed by the then Chairman, Gramin Bank, by G
sending the answer books to ~he Banking. Institute,
Mumbai, by courier service. The Gramin Bank has
) categorically stated that the question papers and answer-
sheets were kept in the joint custody of the Chairman and
one Director of the Bank. The report submitted by the State H
292 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R.
A Committees also did not indicate in any manner
whatsoever that there was some fault with the written
examination. There is no averment whatsoever in the
report which may indicate that the list of the successful
candidates was not in accordance with the merits of the
B candidates prepared by the examining body. The
appellants have been given fair treatment in the written
test held by the Institute but as they had failed to qualify
the test, they, on any legitimate ground, cannot be
permitted to allege wholly unfounded, irresponsible and
c uncalled for allegations of favoritism or mala fide against
respondent No.10. For the lack of specific and definite
allegations of mala fide in the writ petition supported by
the evidence in proof of such facts of mala tides, the writ
petition of the appellants has been rightly rejected by the
High Court. There is no infirmity or perversity in the
0
reasoning of the High Court warranting interference in this
appeal. [Para 20] [307-G-H; 308-A-E]
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1495
of 2008.
E From the final Judgment and Order dated 27/1/2005 of
the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in CMWP No. 38011 I
2004.
Raju Ramachandran, Ravindra Kumar, Raj Kumar Gupta,
F Sheo Kumar Gupta, Arun Yadav, R. Mishra, Mukesh Kumar .,J.
Singh and A.N. Bardiyar for the Appellants.
M.N. Krishnamani, D.K. Agarwal, Rameshwar Prasad
Goyal, Anil Kumar Pandey, Pankaj Kumar Singh, K.L. Janjani,
Dhruv Mehta and Yashraj Singh Deora (for M/s. K.L. Mehta &
G Co.) for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
.,,
LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J. 1. Leave granted. I
2. This appeal by special leave filed by Shri Chandra
H
-
CHANDRA P. SINGH & ORS. v. CHAIRMAN, PURVANCHAL 293
_. GRAMIN BANK & ORS. [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]
Prakash Singh and others [hereinafter referred to as the A
'Appellants'] is directed against the Judgment and Order dated
27.01.2005 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.38011 of
2004. By the impugned judgment, the High Court dismissed
the Writ Petition in which prayer for quashing of the examination B
for promotion of the Clerk-cum-Cashier and Officer Scale I to
the post of Officers Scale-I and Officer Scale-II respectively and
for quashing the resolution passed by the Board of Directors of
the Gramin Bank on 28.08.2004 and other consequential reliefs,
came to be dismissed. c
3. The relevant and necessary facts giving rise to the filing
of the appeal may be stated. Basti Gramin Bank [hereinafter,
referred to as 'Gramin Bank'] is one of the Regional Rural Banks
constituted under Section 3 of the Regional Rural Banks Act,
1976 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act']. Section 6(2) of the D
Act lays down that Gramin Bank is sponsored by the State Bank
of India which has got 35% shareholding, whereas the
Government of India has got 50% shareholding while State of
U.P. has got balance 15% shareholding. The Central
Government in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 29 E
read with Section 17 of the Act, after consultation with the
National Bank and the Sponsor Bank, notified the Regional Rural
Banks (Appointment and Promotion of Officers and Other
Employees) Rules, 1998 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules'].
..... The Third Schedule of the Rules deals with the appointment to F
different categories of officers and other employees to Group
A, Band C either by direct recruitment or by promotion. Clause
2 of the Schedule deals with the promotion/appointment to the
post of Scale 11 Officer while Clause 3 deals with the promotion/
appointment to the post of Scale I officer. Clause 2 also provides G
that the post of Scale II Officer shall be filled entirely by promotion
on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. It further provides that the
selection of the candidates shall be made by the Committee on
the basis of written test, interview and assessment of
Performance Appraisal Report for the preceding five years as
H
294 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R.
A an officer in Scale I and that the Committee for considering
promotion shall consist of the Chairman of the concerned
Regional Rural Bank, a Director nominated by the Sponsor Bank
....
and a Director nominated by the National Bank. Sixty (60) marks
are prescribed for the written test while twenty (20) marks are
B fixed for the interview test and twenty (20) marks for Performance
Appraisal Report. So far as the promotion/appointment to the
post of Scale I officer is concerned, Clause 3 provides that 50%
shall be appointed by direct recruitment and 50% by promotion
and that promotions shall be made on the basis of seniority-
c cum-merit. In the case of direct recruitment, the selection of
candidates shall be made by the Banking Services Recruitment
Board on the basis of written test and interview, while in the
case of promotion, the selection of the candidates shall be made
by the Committee on the basis of written test, interview and
Performance Appraisal Report. The composition of the
D
committee is the same as in the case of promotion/ appointment
to the post of Scale 11 officer but 70 marks have been prescribed
on the basis of the written test, 20 marks have been allotted for
interview and the remaining 10 marks for Performance
Appraisal Report.
E
4. In the year 2001, 47 posts of Scale II officer and 16
posts of Scale I officer were required to be filled in the Gramin
Bank. The Board of Directors of the Gramin Bank in its meeting
held on 20.09.2001 approved the holding of the written ...
F examination by the Institute of Banking Personnel Selection, •
Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as 'the Banking Institute,
Mumbai']. A Circular was issued on 09.07.2002, fixing 181h
August, 2002 the date on which the written test was stated to
be held. All the appellants appeared at the written test without
any protest on any ground whatsoever.
G
5. It appears from the record that one Mr. Tiwary, Director
y
of Gram in Bank on 22.10.2001 made a complaint to the Finance
'
Minister, Government of India, giving details of corruption and
financial irregularities committed by the officers of the Gram in
H Bank. On 25.06.2002, Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank Officers and
CHANDRA P. SINGH & ORS. v. CHAIRMAN, PURVANCHAL 295
GRAMIN BANK & ORS. [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]
-f
Workers Organization alleged to have submitted a complaint A
to the Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, against the
Chairman of the Gramin Bank.
6. The appellants filed writ petition in the High Court of
Allahabad praying for quashing of the test held on 18.08.2002
inter a/ia on the ground that the test was conducted by the then B
f
Chairman of the Gramin Bank, Sri Zameer Hasan- Respondent
No.1 Oherein, in spite of the fact that his real brother-Syed Mohd.
Rizvi and cousin-Kazim Hussain Rizvi who were working as
Clerk-cum-Cashiers, were also the candidates for promotion
to the post of officer Scale I. Respondent No.10 on 28.05.2004 c
was transferred as General Manager of the Gramin Bank,
Deorai, but he still declared the result of the examination on
01.06.2004. The State Government appointed inquiry
committee consisting of two officers of the Directorate of
Institutional Finance, Lucknow. The Committee submitted its D
"' report on 18.07.2004 which was forwarded to the Gramin Bank
by the Secretary, Banking Department, Government of U.P.
through communication dated 27.07.2004. The appellants
prayed that in view of the report submitted against improper
functioning and acts of commission and omission of the officers/ E
officials of the Gramin Bank, the examinations should be
cancelled and fresh examinations be conducted. The record
reveals that after the written test was held on 18.08.2002 the
Workers' Association of the Gramin Bank filed a civil suit in which
)..,
~
an injunction was granted by the trial Court as a result of which, F
." the result of the written test could not be declared and it was
only on 31.05.2004 when the trial Court rejected the application
for grant of temporary injunction that the candidates could be
called for interview for the post of Officer Scale II and Officer
Scale I after declaration of the result of the written test by the
G
Chairman of the Gramin Bank on 02.06.2004 and 07.06.2004
l. respectively. The names of the appellants did not appear in the
--
j said list. The writ petition was filed on 17 .09.2004 when the
High Court, in view of the report dated 18.07.2004 while granting
time to the respondents in the writ petition to file a counter
( H
296 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 3 S.C.R.
A affidavit, ordered that the process of selection may go on but
no appointments be made. The interviews were subsequently
held on 23.09.2004 and 24.09.2004 respectively.
7. The stand of the Gramin Bank before the High Court in
its counter affidavit was that the written examination was
B conducted by the Banking Institute, Mumbai after the approval
of the Board of Directors of the Gramin Bank; the inquiry
conducted by the Committee was ex parte since no information
was sought for by the members of the Committee from the
Gramin Bank and even otherwise, the State Government has
C no authority or power to exercise any control over the Gramin
Bank since under Section 29 of the Act, the bank is governed
by the policies of the Central Government. The Gramin Bank
also stated that the alleged report has not pointed out any infirmity
in the process of conducting the written examination and
D promotions to the key posts had been stalled to the detriment
of the interest of the Gramin Bank initially because of the
injunction granted by the civil Court which was vacated-on 31 51
May, 2004 and thereafter the process was completed. The First
Appeal from the order filed against the rejection application was
E dismissed by the High Court on 161h September, 2004. It was
contended that the writ petition would suffer from delay and
la ch es.
8. In the High Court, four successful candidates, namely,
Ashok Kumar, Rajendra Babu, Satyendra Kumar Srivastava and
F Ravi Pratap Singh filed impleadment applications which were
allowed by the High Court. The newly added respondents filed
detailed counter affidavits. The parties have completed their
pleadings. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and
having perused the entire record, the High Court has not found
G any substance in the writ petition of the appellants and
accordingly dismissed the same inter alia holding that the
Banking Institute, Mumbai, an examining body, was not a party ¥
in writ petition; the appellants have failed to prove allegation of •
mala fide against Sri Zameer Hasan, the then Chairman of the
H Gramin Bank; the appellants are estopped from challenging the
CHANDRA P. SINGH &ORS. v. CHAIRMAN, PURVANCHAL 297
GRAMIN BANK & ORS. [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]
examination held on 181h August, 2002 as they had participated A
in the said examination; the appellants are members of Workers'
Union who filed the suit in the trial Court and as such the
appellants are playing hide and seek with the Court and the
inquiry report does not indicate that the examination was vitiated
due to influence of Sri Zameer Hasan - respondent No.10. B
Hence, the appellants have filed this appeal questioning the
~
correctness and validity of the judgment of the High Court.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
examined the entire material on record. Mr. Raju Ramachandran,
learned senior Advocate appearing on behalf of Shri Chandra c
Prakash Singh - appellant No.1, vehemently contended that the
High Court gravely erred by holding that the appellants have
failed to prove allegations of mala fide or bias against
respondent No.10 in the face of the report submitted by the
Committee appointed by the State Government which creates D
some cloud and a real likelihood of bias on the part of
respondent No.10, who, at the relevant time, was Chairman of
the Gramin Bank having some influence over the Institution
helping his brother and cousin in the selection for the posts in
question. He submitted that as there existed a doubt, which is E
required to be cleared, the Gramin Bank being a statutory
independent body in all its fairness, ought to have held some
independent inquiry to the complaint made by the appellants
and others in regard to the selection of the candidates in arbitrary
~
and unfair manner by the Institution, who conducted the F
examination. In support of his submissions, reliance is placed
upon the judgment of this Court in Jitendra Kumar & Ors. v.
State of Haryana &Anr. [2007 (14) SCALE 125]. We have gone
through the judgment in which it has been held that the decision
making process should veer round the question in regard to the
G
lack of bona fide or an act of arbitrariness on the part of the
State. If lack of bona fide or arbitrariness on the part of the State
-·• is proved, whether the right is considered to be a vested or
accrued right, or otherwise a negative right, the superior Court
may exercise its power of judicial review. The judicial intervention
H
298 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 3 S.C.R.
A would, thus, be possible only when a finding of fact is arrived at
in regard to the aforementioned acts of omissions and
commission on the part of the State and not otherwise. In our
view, there cannot be any quarrel or dispute in regard to the
above-mentioned proposition of law, but the law has to be
B applied in the facts and circumstances of each case. In the
present case, the facts situation is totally different and, therefore,
this decision is of no assistance to the appellant No.1.
10. Mr. Raj Kumar Gupta, Advocate appearing on behalf
of the appellant nos. 2 to 8, contended that the appellants have
C proved on record that the written examination stood vitiated
because the test was conducted by respondent No.1 Oin which
his real brother and cousin also appeared for promotion to the
post of officer Scale I. In support of this submission, reliance is
placed upon the report dated 1ath July, 2004 submitted by a
D Committee of two officers which was communicated to the
Gramin Bank by the Secretary, Banking Department, by his letter
dated 27th July, 2004. He also submitted that the bias of
respondent No.10 is writ large on the face of the record as the
result of the written test was declared on 01 st June, 2004 by Sri
E Zameer Hasan as Chairman of the Gramin Bank in spite of the
fact that he took transfer on 2ath May, 2004. He next contended
that the question papers set by the Banking Institute, Mumbai,
were kept by respondent No.10 in his custody although as per
practice the question papers were to be kept in the custody of
F two officers of the Bank and the answer sheets were also kept
by him in his custody before dispatching them to the institute for
evaluation which were dispatched by a private courier and not
through the postal services. He further contended that one of
the relatives of respondent No.10, namely, Syed Md. Rizvi, was
G on medical leave during the period when the written examination
was conducted, but still he was permitted to appear in the
examination which would show that the selection of the ¥
candidates for the promotion to the posts, in question, was •
processed in hot haste manner with mala fide intention and with
sole object to get Sri Syed Md. Rizvi and Sri Kazim Hussain
H
CHANDRA P. SINGH & ORS. v. CHAIRMAN, PURVANCHAL 299
GRAMIN BANK & ORS. [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]
Rizvi, the real brother and cousin of respondent No.10, selected. A
According to the learned counsel, the said instances are
sufficient to create a reasonable apprehension in the mind of
the appellants that there was likelihood of bias of the respondent
No.10, who might have influenced the examination body to get
his near relatives selected in the written test. Thus, the High B
Court has failed to appreciate the factual situation and legal
aspect of the matter in proper perspective manner. In support
of the submissions, reliance is placed on the decisions of this
Court in Ashok Kumar Yadav & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors.
[(1985) 4 SCC 417] and Krishna Yadav and Anr v. State of C
Haryana & Ors. ((1994) 4 SCC 165].
11. In order to appreciate the contentions of the appellants,
we have gone through both the said decisions. In Ashok Kumar
Yadav's case (supra}, two members of the Haryana PSC did
not participate in the interview and had retired from the room D
when the interviews of their respective relatives were held.
Moreover, neither of them took any part in any discussion in
regard to the merits of his relatives nor was there anything
brought on record to show that the marks or credits obtained by
their respective relatives at the interview were disclosed to them. E
The Court was, thus, of the view that there was no infirmity
attaching to the selections made by the Haryana Public Service
Commission. This Court stated that one of the fundamental
a
principles of our jurisprudence is that no man can be judge in
his own cause. The question is not whether the Judge is actually F
biased or in fact decides partially but whether the circumstances
are such as to create a reasonable apprehension in the mind of
others that there is a likelihood of bias affecting the decision. If
there is a reasonable likelihood of bias it is "in accordance with
natural justice and common sense that the justice likely to be so G
biased should be incapacitated from sitting". The basic principle
underlying this rule is that justice must not only be done but must
also appear to be done. The Court further held that this rule is
not confined to cases where judicial power stricto sensu is
exercised. It is appropriately extended to all cases where an
H
300 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R.
A independent mind has to be applied to arrive at a fair and just
decision between the rival claims of parties. Since the
instrumentalities of the State are expected to discharge their
functions in a fair and just manner the applicability of this rule is
extended to the decision-making process of a selection
B committee constituted for selecting personnel for service in such
instrumentalities. Further, it is held that if a selection committee
is constituted for the purpose of selecting candidates on merits
and one of the members of the selection committee is closely
related to a candidate appearing for the selection, it would not
c be enough for such member merely to withdraw from
participation in the interview of the candidate related to him but
he must withdraw altogether from the entire selection process
and ask the authorities to nominate another person in his place
on the selection committee, because otherwise all the selections
made would be vitiated on account of reasonable likelihood of
0
bias affecting the process of selection.
12. In Krishan Yadav's case (supra), the selection of
Taxation Inspectors by Subordinate Selection Board was set
aside being vitiated by fraud and arbitrariness on the basis of
E accepting the CBI report. In the said case, serious allegations
were made against the Selection Board which was referred by
Supreme Court of India to CBI for investigation. CBI Report
revealing acts of favouritism, selections without interview as also
on the basis of fake or ghost interviews, tampering with final
F records, fabrication of documents, forgery, keeping the selection
list a secret, issuing appointment letters after calling selected
candidates and obtaining joining reports from them on the spot
without any medical test and verification of antecedents and
destroying the original records including the answer books. On
G the basis of these serious allegations against the Selection
Board, which are found to be genuine and truthful by the CBI
during the investigation, this Court set aside the entire selection
1
being vitiated by fraud, nepotism and arbitrariness.
13. Dr. Dhruv Mehta, Advocate appearing on behalf of
H respondent Nos. 1 to 6 and respondent No.10 - Sri Zameer
CHANDRA P. SINGH & ORS. v. CHAIRMAN, PURVANCHAL 301
GRAMIN BANK & ORS. [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]
Hasan Ex-Chairman/General Manager, on the other hand, made A
submissions in support of the judgment of the Division Bench
of the High Court. He contended that the allegation of bias or
mala fide alleged by the appellants against respondent No.10
is vague and irresponsible which is not established by the
appellants by leading any evidence in support thereof. He B
~ contended that the examination for promotion to the post of
officers Scale I from the Clerk cadre as well as promotion to the
post of scale II was conducted by the Banking Institute, Mumbai,
a body duly approved by the Reserve Bank of India and
promoted by All India Commissioner Banks and not by c
respondent No.10, the then Chairman of the Gramin Bank and
the list of successful candidates for interview to the post was
published by the Chairman vide Order dated 02.06.2004 and
subsequently the list of successful candidates for interview to
the post of Officer Scale-I was published by the General Manager
D
of the Gramin Bank vide Order dated 07.06.2004. He submitted
that the inquiry got conducted by the State Government through
its agency, was totally against the provisions of the law as the
Gramin Bank has been established under the Regional Rural
Banks Act, 1976 which is an instrumentality of the Central
Government and, therefore, the State Government has no control E
whatsoever over the Gramin Bank to order an inquiry. He
contended that no allegation of change of answer sheets or
manipulation of the marks has been alleged or pleaded by the
).
appellants in the writ petition and no supporting evidence except
;.. bald assertion of mala fide has been alleged against F
respondent No.10 by the appellants nor any allegation of bias
or mala fide has been alleged against the Examination
Committee or the Selection Committee consisting of one
Director of the Sponsor Bank and one Director of the National
Bank, who interviewed the selected candidates whose names G
were sponsored by the Examination Committee.
~
14. Mr. M.N. Krishnamani, learned senior Advocate
appearing for respondent No.15, submitted that the appellants
have not made any allegation regarding the promotion of the
H
302 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R.
A selected candidates from Scale I to Scale II, therefore, there is
no perversity or illegality in the judgment of the High Court which
requires interference by this Court. In nutshell, the learned counsel
appearing on behalf of the contesting respondents including
some of the selected candidates have contended that the well-
s reasoned judgment of the High Court does not suffer from any
infirmity or perversity warranting interference by this Court. In
support of their contentions, the learned counsel has placed
reliance upon the decisions of this Court in State of Punjab v.
VK. Khanna and Ors. [(2001) 2 sec 330] and the recent
C judgment of this Court in Dhampur Sugar (Kashipur) Ltd. v.
State of Uttaranchal and Ors. [(2007) 8 SCC 418].
15. In State of Punjab v. V.K. Khanna's case (supra), this
Court held that the concept of fairness in administrative action
has been the subject-matter of considerable judicial debate but
D there is total unanimity on the basic element of the concept to
the effect that the same is dependent upon the facts and
circumstances of each matter pending scrutiny before the Court
and no strait-jacket formula can be evolved therefore. Further it
is stated that as a matter of fact, fairness is synonymous with
E reasonableness and on the issue of ascertainment of meaning
of reasonableness, common English parlance referred to as
what is in contemplation of an ordinary man of prudence similarly
placed - it is the appreciation of this common man's perception
in its proper perspective which would prompt the Court to
F determine the situation as to whether the same is otherwise
reasonable or not. Similarly, the existence of mala fide intent or
biased attitude cannot be put on a strait-jacket formula but
depends upon facts and circumstances of each case. Further,
it is said that whereas fairness is synonymous with
G reasonableness - bias stands included within the attributes and
broader purview of the word "malice" which in common
acceptation means and implies "spite" or "ill will". Mere general
statements will not be sufficient for the purposes of indication of
ill will. There must be cogent evidence available on record to
come to the conclusion as to whether, in fact, there was a bias
H
CHANDRA P. SINGH & ORS. v. CHAIRMAN, PURVANCHAL 303
t GRAMIN BANK & ORS. [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]
or a mala fide move which resulted in the miscarriage of justice. A
It is also held that the test of bias is as to whether there is a
mere apprehension of bias or there is a real danger of bias and
it is on this score that the surrounding circumstances must and
ought to be collated and necessary conclusion drawn therefrom.
In the event, however, the conclusion is otherwise that there B
exists a real danger of bias, administrative action cannot be
sustained. If on the other hand allegations pertain to rather fanciful
apprehension in administrative action, question of declaring
them to be unsustainable on the basis therefor, would not arise.
16. In Dhampur Sugar (Kashipur) Ltd. v. State of c
Uttaranchal and Ors. 's case (supra), this Court dealing with the
question of mala fide exercise of power, held as under:
"Allegations of mala fide are serious in nature and they
essentially raise a question of fact. It is, therefore,
r'. D
necessary for the person making such allegations to supply
full particulars in the petition. If sufficient averments and
requisite materials are not on record, the Court would not
make "fishing" or roving inquiry. Mere. assertion, vague
averment or bald statement is not enough to hold the action
to be mala fide. It must be demonstrated by facts. E
Moreover, the burden of proving mala fide is on the person
leveling such allegations and the burden is "very heavy". In
the present case, except alleging that the policy was altered
"'· by the Government to extend the benefit to IGL, no material
whatsoever was placed on record by the appellant. It is, F
therefore, not possible to hold that the impugned action
was mala fide or malicious."
17. In the light of the above-said settled law, we have
examined the facts and circumstances of the case in hand. In
G
the present case, it is not in dispute that the Board of Directors
of the Gramin Bank in its meeting held on 20th September, 2001
approved the holding of the written examination of promotion
by the Banking Institute, Mumbai for 47 posts of Scale II officers
and 16 posts of Scale I officers. A Circular to that effect was
H
304 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008) 3 S.C.R.
A issued on ogth July, 2002 fixing 18th August 2002 as a date on
which the written test was scheduled to be held. The appellants
appeared at the written test but they could not qualify the test.
Sri Zameer Hasan - respondent No.10, at the relevant time,
was the Chairman of the Gramin Bank whereas respondent nos.
B 2, 3 & 5 to 9 were the Directors of the Gramin Bank. Sri J.K.
Lahri - respondent no. 4 was the Director of the Gram in Bank
as nominee of the State Bank of India and Sri D.P. Sanda -
respondent No.11 was Director of Banking Institute, Mumbai.
The merit list of the successful candidates was prepared by the
c Banking Institute, Mumbai which was sent to the Gramin Bank.
The list containing the names of the selected candidates was
placed on the Notice Board by respondent No.10 being
Chairman of the Bank on 01st June 2004. In between the holding
of the written test on 18th August, 2002 and placing the selected
list of the successful candidates on the notice board on 01st
D
June, 2004, there was an interim injunction order operating
against the Gramin Bank not to declare the result passed by
the Civil Court in suit filed by the Workers' Association of the
Gramin Bank which was subsequently vacated on 31st May,
2004 permitting the Gramin Bank to hold the interview for the
E post of officer Scale II and Officer Scale I after declaration of
the result of the written test. Respondent No.10 was transferred
on 28th May, 2004 as General Manager of the Gramin Bank,
Deorai, but he has not relinquished the charge till the date of
declaring the result of the writteh test. It is also established on
F record that on 07th June, 2004, the successor Chairman of
respondent No.10 placed the same merit list of the successful
candidates on the Notice Board for the inspection of the
candidates. The names of the appellants herein did not appear
in the said select list. The personal interviews of the successful
G candidates were held on 23rd September, 2004 and 24th
September, 2004. The inquiry ordered to be conducted by the
State Government in regard to the mismanagement and other '
irregularities etc. of the Gramin Bank, was ex pa rte without giving
any intimation to the Board of Directors of the Gramin Bank.
H The State Government ex facie does not exercise any control
. ': ~·
CHANDRA P. SINGH & ORS. v. CHAIRMAN, PURVANCHAL 305
....., GRAMIN BANK & ORS. [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]
over the Gramin Bank since under Section 29 of the Act, the A
Gramin Bank is governed by the policies of the Central
Government. The High Court in its judgment has observed that
the report submitted by the members of the committee
appointed by the State Government did not point out any infirmity
in the conduct of the written examination. The appellants have B
not made the Banking Institute, Mumbai, who conducted the
examination, as party in writ petition nor any allegation of mala
fide or mal- practice has been alleged against the institution.
The appellants have also not made Sri Syed Md. Rizvi, brother,
and Sri Kazim Hussain Rizvi, cousin, respectively of the c
respondent No.10 as parties in the writ petition who, admittedly,
were the successful candidates in the written test for the posts
in question. The written test was not conducted by respondent
no.1 O nor was he heading the selection committee. All that has
been alleged in paragraphs 11 and 14 of the writ petition by the
D
7 appellants reads as under:-
"11. That the written-test was held on 18.8.2002 which
was conducted by opposite party no.10, who was officiating
Chairman of the Bank at that time.
14. That it was specifically mentioned in the above E
mentioned complaints that the opposite party No.10, was
making grounds for promoting his real brother and his
cousin namely Syed Md. Rizvi and Kazim Hussain Rizvi,
who are already employed in the Bank as Clerk cum
Cashier and he wants their promotion to Officer Scale I." F
The above-extracted allegations are absolutely vague,
indefinite and did not contain sufficient material as required
under law in support thereof. The appellants have not established
on record that respondent No.10-Sri Zameer Hasan, the then
G
Chairman, was an instrument in getting his brother and cousin
through in the written examination and later on it was under his
"' influence that the Selection Committee had selected his two
relatives for the posts in question. In addition to the decisions
referred to above, this Court in Tara Chand Khatri vs. Municipal
H
306 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R.
A
.. ..
Corporation of Delhi & Ors. [AIR 1977 SC 567]; E.P Royappa
v. State of Tamil Nadu & Anr [AIR 1874 SC 555] and Mis.
Sukhwinder Pal Bipan Kumar & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.
[AIR 1982 SC 65] held that the burden of establishing mala fide
is very heavy on the person who alleges it. The Court, would,
B therefore, be slow to draw dubious inferences from incomplete
facts placed before it by a party, particularly when the •
imputations are grave and they are made against the holder of ~
an office which has a high responsibility in administration. Such
is the judicial perspective in evaluating charges of unworthy ...•
c conduct against ministers and other, not because of any special
status ..... but because otherwise, functioning effectively would
become difficult in a democracy.
18. In M. Sankaranarayanan, /AS v. State of Karnataka &
Ors. [AIR 1993 SC 763], this Court observed that the Court may
D "draw a reasonable inference of mala fide from the facts pleaded
and established. But such inference must be based on factual t
matrix and such factual matrix cannot remain the realm of
institution, surmise or conjecture." In N.K. Singh v. Union of India
and Ors. [(1994) 6 SCC 98], this Court held that the inference
E of mala fides be drawn by reading in between the lines and
taking into account the attendant circumstances.
19. Thus, as a proposition of law, the burden of proving
mala fide is very heavy on the person who alleges it. Mere
allegation is not enough. Party making such allegations is under
F the legal obligation to place specific materials before the Court " ,._ >
to substantiate the said allegations. There has to be very strong
and convincing evidence to establish the allegations of mala
fides specifically and definitely alleged in the petition as the same
cannot merely be presumed. The presumption under law is in
G favour of the bona fides of the order unless contradicted by
acceptable material. In the present case, no specific and definite
real danger of bias has been made against respondent no.10
to indicate how he was in a position to influence or manipulate
.,,,
the result of the written test conducted by the Banking Institute,
H Mumbai. There are no specific pleadings nor any proof thereof
....
CHANDRA P. SINGH & ORS. v. CHAIRMAN, PURVANCHAL 307
GRAMIN BANK & ORS. [LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, J.]
in the writ petition filed by the appellants. In such circumstances, A
the Court is under no obligation to entertain the pleas of mala
fide or arbitrariness. In the backdrop of the facts and
circumstances of the present case and in the light of the settled
law, we agree with the reasoning recorded by the High Court
that there are no proper pleadings nor there is any other B
evidence brought on record by the appellants to substantiate
J the sweeping, bald and unfounded allegation of mala fide alleged
against respondent No.10 - Sri Zameer Hasan.
20. The two member committee appointed by the State
Government in its report made certain observations that Sri. c
Zameer Hasan - respondent No.10 had declared the result of
the written test on 01 st June, 2004, despite the fact that he stood
transferred on 28th May, 2004, the answer-sheets should not
have been sent to the Banking Institute, Mumbai, by courier
service and the answer-sheets and the question papers were D
not kept in the joint custody, but the respondent No.10 had kept
them in his own custody and that one candidate had appeared
at the examination even though he was on leave are not
substantiated by any evidence. It is a fact that respondent no.10
has not filed any independent counter to the writ petition, but the E
respondent - Gramin Bank in its counter has answered and
explained each and every paragraph of the writ petition. It was
the case of the respondent- Gramin Bank before the High Court
that Sri Zameer Hasan - respondent No.10 was relieved from
the post on 01 st June, 2004 and the list of the successful F
candidates submitted by the Banking Institute, Mumbai, to the
Gramin Bank, was placed on the Notice Board on 02nct June,
2004 by respondent No.10 which was again circulated by the
successor Chairman on 07th June, 2004. The candidate, who
was on medical leave, in fact had appeared in the written
G
examination during his leave period. The mere assertion of the
appellants that one selected candidate could not have appeared
r
~
in the written test, because during the relevant time he was on
leave, in the absence of any supporting evidence cannot be
accepted. Further, no infirmity or illegality appears to have been
H
..-
308 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 3 S.C.R.
,,.
A committed by the then Chairman, Gramin Bank, by sending the I""
answer books to the Banking Institute, Mumbai, by courier
service. The Gramin Bank has categorically stated that the
question papers and answer-sheets were kept in the joint custody
of the Chairman and one. Director of the Bank. The report
B submitted by the State Committees also did not indicate in any
manner whatsoever that there was some fault with the written
examination. There is no averment whatsoever in the report ·
which may indicate that the list of the successful candidates
was not in accordance with the merits of the candidates
prepared by the examining body. We are, however, satisfied on
.
c the material placed before us that the appellants have been given
fair treatment in the written test held by the Institute but as they
had failed to qualify the test, they, on any legitimate ground,
cannot be permitted to allege wholly unfounded, irresponsible
and uncalled for allegations of favoritism or mala fide against
D +
respondent No.10. For the lack of specific and definite
allegations of mala fide in the writ petition supported by the
evidence in proof of such facts of mala fides, the writ petition of
the appellants has been rightly rejected by the High Court. We
find no fault or infirmity or perversity in the reasoning of the High
E Court warranting interference in this appeal.
21. For the above said reasons, there is no merit in this
appeal and it is, accordingly, dismissed. In the facts and
circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own
F costs.
D.G. Appeal dismissed.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "mala fide"Sign in to search