Nagendra Sah Vs. the Bihar State Co-operative Land Development Bank Simit Limited Through Its Administrator,

Nagendra Sah vs The Bihar State Co-operative Land Development Bank Simit Limited Through Its Administrator, ;The Adm

Disposition Writ petition dismissed Court Jharkhand Decided Jun 30, 2006

~4 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/518123

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/518123
Court: Jharkhand High Court
Judge: R.K. Merathia, J.
Decided On: Jun 30, 2006
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 335 of 1998 (R)
Subject: Service
Disposition: Writ petition dismissed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- CONSTITUTION OF INDIA Article 215: [M. Karpaga Vinayagam, CJM, .Y.Eqbal & Amareshwar Sahay, R.K. Merathia, Narendra Nath Tiwari, JJ] Contempt Proceedings Review Powers of High Court Held, Article 215 of the Constitution vests the High Court with all the powers of court of record including the power to punish fo...

Key legal issue: Service
Outcome / disposition: Writ petition dismissed

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Nagendra Sah

Advocate Saurav Arun, Adv.

Respondent

The Bihar State Co-operative Land Development Bank Simit Limited Through Its Administrator, ;The Adm

Advocate M.K. Sinha, Adv.

Legal References

Reported In: [2006(3)JCR400(Jhr)]

Excerpt

.....record including the power to punish for its contempt. this special jurisdiction is inherent in a court of record from the very nature of the court itself. the said special power is not subject to the procedural law either of the criminal procedure code or the contempt of courts act. the high court can deal with the matter summarily and can adopt its own procedure. however, if the high court initiates the proceeding as a court of record, principle of natural justice must be applied and the contemner should be given sufficient opportunity to know the accusation and to defend himself. in the instant case, the contemner was served with the notice to show cause. he was well aware of the accusation. he also admitted his guilt. in view thereof, contention of the contemner lawyer that he was not heard on merit of the contempt application and the impugned judgment of punishing petitioner in contempt of court is violative of principles of natural justice, is not tenable. article 215: contempt proceedings review of conviction held, it is the solemn duty of the bench and bar to maintain and uphold the majesty, authority and dignity of the courts for the sustenance and progress of democracy in our country particularly at the juncture when there are number of instances of outside attempt to disintegrate and destroy the democratic set up of our country. such conduct of a member of the bar brings the authority of the court and the administration of justice into disrespect, erodes and undermine the foundation of the judiciary by shaking faith and confidence of the people in the ability of the courts to deliver free and fair justice, it is a deliberate attempt to insult the high court and denigrate the authority and solemnity and court strongly deprecate such attempt made with biased attitude. such indiscriminate allegations against judges, who are the members of the bench, cannot be a ground for review of the impugned judgment. punishment of prohibiting appearance of..........it is not possible to accept the said contentions. the main work of a branch manager of state co-operative land development bank is to disburse and realize loan as per the rules and norms of the bank, and it was not required to be mentioned in the order of his posting. in the other office order, realization of loan, has been added as a reason of such transfer/posting. petitioner did not raise such plea in the departmental proceeding, and rightly.5. the other grievance is also not tenable. it is clear that petitioner was given opportunity to adduce evidence. he appeared before the inquiry officer but there is nothing to show that he requested for adducing any oral or documentary evidence in his defence.6. it appears that the respondents took a decision that the branch managers should be reposted at the same branches where they were earlier posted in order to speed up, realization of loan, and accordingly petitioner who was posted at lohardaga for about ten years between april, 1984 to may, 1994 was reposted at the same branch, in october, 1996 vide annexure-5.it was held by the disciplinary authority that while disbursing loan, he did not follow the rules and norms of the bank and by making bad disbursements, he caused hindrance in the progress of the bank and other eligible peasants. it was found that his explanations were lame excuses. he never asked for funds and therefore his explanation of shortage of funds was baseless. the excuse of non availability of the certificate officer was also found wrong. it was further found that he never asked for armed guard and therefore this excuse was also baseless. petitioner asked for supply of a document during the departmental proceeding, but when he was asked about its relevance, he kept. mum.7. relying on the judgment reported in 2004 (2) jljr 235 (amrendra narain singh), mr. saurav submitted that the disciplinary authority could not take into consideration-that petitioner had bad track record and one more departmental.....

Full Judgment

R.K. Merathia, J

1. Petitioner has challenged the order-dated 4.12.1997 ( Annexure-10), by which he has been dismissed from service.

2. When he was posted as Branch Manager of the Bank at Lohardaga, a show cause notice and then a charge-sheet was issued to him for violating the rules and instructions of the Bank and committing irregularities, in disbursing loan. He was given opportunity of personal hearing and for adducing evidence, by office order dated 16.5.1997 (Annexure-3). He filed his written explanation (Annexure-4). He did not lead any evidence. The Inquiry officer found him guilty of negligence in realization of Bank loan. However, he did not find him guilty of the second charge-i.e. obstructing disbursement of loan during 1996-97. Petitioner protested to the said finding recorded against him by the Inquiry Officer. Ultimately, he was dismissed from service by the impugned order dated 4.12.1997 (Annexure-10) after considering his reply to the second show cause.

3. Mr. Saurav Arun, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that petitioner was not posted for realization of loan as no such thing was mentioned in the office order (Annexure-5), by which he and other managers were transferred and posted, whereas the office order dated 13.9.1996, shows that several Managers were transferred and posted for realization of loan. He further submitted that petitioner has been dismissed without any material against him.

4. It is not possible to accept the said contentions. The main work of a Branch Manager of State Co-Operative Land Development Bank is to disburse and realize loan as per the Rules and Norms of the Bank, and it was not required to be mentioned in the order of his posting. In the other office order, realization of loan, has been added as a reason of such transfer/posting. Petitioner did not raise such plea in the departmental proceeding, and rightly.

5. The other grievance is also not tenable. It is clear that petitioner was given opportunity to adduce evidence. He appeared before the Inquiry officer but there is nothing to show that he requested for adducing any oral or documentary evidence in his defence.

6. It appears that the respondents took a decision that the Branch Managers should be reposted at the same branches where they were earlier posted in order to speed up, realization of loan, and accordingly petitioner who was posted at Lohardaga for about ten years between April, 1984 to May, 1994 was reposted at the same branch, in October, 1996 vide Annexure-5.

It was held by the disciplinary authority that while disbursing loan, he did not follow the Rules and Norms of the Bank and by making bad disbursements, he caused hindrance in the progress of the Bank and other eligible peasants. It was found that his explanations were lame excuses. He never asked for funds and therefore his explanation of shortage of funds was baseless. The excuse of non availability of the Certificate Officer was also found wrong. It was further found that he never asked for armed guard and therefore this excuse was also baseless. Petitioner asked for supply of a document during the departmental proceeding, but when he was asked about its relevance, he kept. mum.

7. Relying on the judgment reported in 2004 (2) JLJR 235 (Amrendra Narain Singh), Mr. Saurav submitted that the disciplinary authority could not take into consideration-that petitioner had bad track record and one more departmental proceeding initiated by the Vigilance Department of the Bank was pending against him, as the same was not in the charge-sheet.

8. The said case is of no help to the petitioner. In the said case, the alleged addiction to drugs and alcohol of the petitioner of that case was taken into consideration, although these charges were not included in the charge-sheet. But in the present case, the disciplinary authority recorded the finding of guilt against the petitioner and thereafter he considered his track record, for the purpose of deciding whether he should be kept in the service or not.

9. There has been no error in the departmental proceeding in question. The finding of guilt against the petitioner is based on relevant considerations. The impugned action is not mala fide. There is no perversity in the impugned order. I do not find any reason to interfere with the finding of guilt recorded against the petitioner or the punishment imposed upon him.

10. In the circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.

Same Court & Year Jharkhand · 2006 Same Parties Nagendra Sah vs The Bihar State Co-operative Land Development... Same Subject Service Same Judge R.K. Merathia, J.

Service