Duryodhan Manjhi Vs. Uco Bank and Ors - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/70354
CourtJharkhand High Court
Decided OnMay-19-2016
AppellantDuryodhan Manjhi
RespondentUco Bank and Ors
Excerpt:
1 in the high court of jharkhand at ranchi w.p.(s) no. 5567 of 2011 ------- duryodhan manjhi, son of shri radha govind manjhi, resident of 303, takshashila apartment, south office para, doranda, p.o & p.s. -doranda, district: ranchi. ... petitioner versus 1.uco bank through its chairman-cum-managing director, having its head office at 3-4 d d block, sector-i, salt lake, district-24 pargana (kolkata) - 700064. 2.chairman-cum-managing director, uco bank, having its office at 10, biplabi trailokya maharaj sarani, kolkata-700001, post box no. 2455, p.s.-dharamtala, district-24 pargana (kolkata). 3.general manager, uco bank, personnel & administrative department, 3-4 d d block, sector-i, salt lake, p.o & p.s. salt lake district-24 pargana (kolkata)-700064. 4.deputy general manager, human resources management, uco bank, 3-4 d d block, sector-i, salt lake, p.o & p.s. salt lake district-24 pargana (kolkata)-700064. 5.deputy general manager (personnel services), personnel service department, head office-2, 3-4 d d block, sector-i, salt lake, p.o & p.s. salt lake district-24 pargana (kolkata)-700064. …... respondents ------ coram: hon’ble mr. justice pramath patnaik ------ for the petitioner : mr. a.k. sahani, advocate. for the respondents : mr. mukesh kumar sinha, adv. ------ c.a.v. on 09.03.2016 pronounced on 19/05/2016 per pramath patnaik, j.: in the accompanied writ application, prayer has been made for quashing order dated 23.06.2009 passed by respondent no. 5 pertaining to dismissal of the petitioner from services and the appellate order dated 17.06.2011 and further direction upon the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in services with all consequential benefits.2. sans details, the facts as disclosed in the writ application, is that the petitioner was selected for appointment on the post of agricultural field officer in the bank's junior management grade scale-i in the year 1980. it is relevant to mention here that the petitioner was not given any benefit of reserved category in the 2 matter of his appointment. but, on the basis of an anonymous letter, the assistant general manager directed the manager of gumla branch to hold enquiry in the matter of caste certificate submitted by the petitioner. in turn, the manager, gumla branch requested the sub-divisional officer, sadar, ranchi vide letter dated 21.04.1981 to apprise about the genuineness of the caste certificate issued to the petitioner. upon receipt of the report dated 15.05.1981 of the s.d.o, sadar, ranchi, the manager, gumla branch submitted his report to the assistant general manager to the effect that caste certificate dated 30.07.1977 produced by the petitioner is genuine and not a false document, as reported by an unknown complainant. thereafter, the services of the petitioner was confirmed in the bank's junior management grade scale-i on 01.07.1982. it has further been submitted that in due course of time, after following the due process of selection, including written test followed by interview, vide letter dated 01.02.1994, the competent authority granted promotion to the petitioner to middle management grade scale -ii w.e.f 15.01.1994. subsequently, the petitioner was further promoted to the post of middle management grade scale-iii w.e.f 17.07.2001. but, suddenly vide order dated 23.06.2009, the petitioner was served with the order of dismissal from bank's service, against which, he preferred appeal, which was also dismissed vide order dated 17.06.2011.3. being aggrieved by the impugned order of dismissal from services, the petitioner has approached this court invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under article 226 of the constitution of india for redressal of his grievances. 3 4. heard mr. a.k. sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner and mr. mukesh kumar sinha, learned counsel for respondents-bank.5. mr. a.k. sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted with vehemence that the impugned order of punishment of dismissal is vitiated on account of breach of principles of natural justice and in infraction of article 14 and 311(2) of the constitution of india. learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the alleged charge on the basis of which the order of dismissal has been passed is a stale one as the impugned order of punishment has been passed after lapse of 29 years of services, which is not legally justifiable. moreover, the impugned order of punishment of dismissal from services is harsh and is not sustainable in view of the law laid down by the hon'ble apex court. learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that prior to issuance of impugned order no notice has been issued nor the allegation of forged certificate has been proved and the certificate which has not been declared as forged, in view of the report submitted on 19.05.1981 pursuant to the direction issued by the competent authority to ascertain the genuineness of the certificate, as per annexure 4 to the writ application. so the order of dismissal after such distance of time, which has visited with civil consequence is not legally sustainable. the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once genuineness of the caste certificate has been decided and it was found to be genuine as back as on 19.05.1981 and thereafter the services of the petitioner was confirmed and even two successive promotions were given therefore, there is no justification on the part of the respondents to impose an 4 extreme punishment of dismissal that too without following the principles of natural justice.6. in this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to a judgment rendered in the case of raju ramsing vasave vs. mahesh deorao bhivapurkar & ors as reported in (2008) 9scc54 7. mr. mukesh kumar sinha, learned counsel for the respondents-bank reiterating the submissions made in the counter affidavit submitted that when the certificate of the petitioner was sent for verification, the deputy commissioner, welfare section, ranchi vide letter dated 09.03.2007 stated that the petitioner belongs to sarabak community, which is not coming under the category of scheduled tribe. learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that a person procuring appointment in a post meant for reserved candidates, on the basis of false certificate is not a person holding civil post within the meaning of article 311 of the constituiton of india. referring to the judgment rendered in the case of regional manager, central bank of india vs. madhulika guruprasad dahir & ors in civil appeal no. 4638 of 2008, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that if the caste certificate furnished by the employee is found to be false, the very foundation of his appointment vanishes and his appointment was rendered illegal. his conduct renders him unfit to be continued in service and must necessarily entail termination.8. referring to the supplementary affidavit dated 05.09.2013, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that vide letter dated 09.08.1999, the petitioner was asked to submit detailed comments on the complaint that he submitted a fake caste certificate in the 5 bank to get employment and he belonged to “saravak (kisan)” sub- caste, which does not come under schedule tribe category, to which, the petitioner replied vide letter dated 10.08.1999 stating therein that the sub-caste “kisan” is recognized as a scheduled tribe under the constitution but failed to substantiate the same. learned counsel for the respondent further referred to the letter dated 17.07.2000 of the deputy commissioner,ranchi, in which, it is stated that as per report of the circle officer, bundu, the petitioner belongs to sarawak (manjhi) caste, which does not come within scheduled tribe category.9. after hearing learned counsel for the parties at length and on perusal of the documents available on record, i am of the considered view that the petitioner has been able to make out a case for interference for the following facts and reasons: (i).admittedly, the impugned order of termination dated 23.06.2009 has been passed without complying the principles of natural justice as no notice or show cause was issued prior to termination. therefore, the impugned order of dismissal from services is a nullity against all the canons of justice, equity and fair play. (ii).moreover, after initial verification of the caste certificate in question, the respondents-bank on being satisfied confirmed the services of the petitioner way back in the year 1982 and consequently thereafter two promotions were given to the petitioner in the year 1994 and 2001 respectively. and after lapse of about three decades, the impugned order has been 6 passed by the respondents-bank, which is hit by doctrine of estoppel and waiver. (iii).furthermore, it appears that the caste certificate has not been cancelled by any competent authority and the respondents- bank are not vested with any power to presume and to treat the said caste certificate to be fake or false in absence of any declaration to this effect. in the case at hand, relying upon an ex-parte of the halka karmchari and presuming the caste certificate of the petitioner to be forged and fake, the impugned order of punishment has been passed. moreover, there is no cogent document to show that the caste certificate of the petitioner was declared to be forged and fake document. therefore, the decision of the respondents to dispense with the services of the petitioner after rendering 29 years of services cannot be legally sustainable that too without adhering to the principles of natural justice and the petitioner having been inflicted with major punishment resulting with civil consequences, the principles of audi alteram partem ought to have been scrupulously followed. (iv).the observations made by this court gets fortified by the decision of hon'ble apex court dated december 12, 2013 passed in the case of shaline vs. new english high sch. assn. & ors. in civil appeal no. 10997 of 2013. (v).reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on a notification dated 08.07.2004 of the personnel, administrative reform & rajbhasha department, government of jharkhand, wherein after taking into consideration the case of 7 madhuri patil & ors vs. additional commissioner, scheduled tribe development council in s.l.p. (c) no. 147603 of 1993, it is resolved that the matter of fake and forged caste certificate has to be placed before the screening committee headed by commissioner and secretary, social welfare department or welfare department. but, in the instant case same procedure has not been followed.10. viewed thus, the petitioner is entitled to get protection against ouster from services, but no other benefit, hence, the impugned order dated 23.06.2009 passed by respondent no. 5 pertaining to dismissal of the petitioner from services and appellate order dated 17.06.2011 are hereby quashed and set aside. in the meantime, if the petitioner has not superannuated from services, he may be reinstated in services forthwith.11. with the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. (pramath patnaik, j.) alankar/-
Judgment:

1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 5567 of 2011 ------- Duryodhan Manjhi, son of Shri Radha Govind Manjhi, resident of 303, Takshashila Apartment, South Office Para, Doranda, P.O & P.S. -Doranda, District: Ranchi. ... Petitioner Versus 1.UCO Bank through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, having its Head Office at 3-4 D D Block, Sector-I, Salt Lake, District-24 Pargana (Kolkata) - 700064. 2.Chairman-cum-Managing Director, UCO Bank, having its Office at 10, Biplabi Trailokya Maharaj Sarani, Kolkata-700001, Post Box No. 2455, P.S.-Dharamtala, District-24 Pargana (Kolkata). 3.General Manager, UCO Bank, Personnel & Administrative Department, 3-4 D D Block, Sector-I, Salt Lake, P.O & P.S. Salt Lake District-24 Pargana (Kolkata)-700064. 4.Deputy General Manager, Human Resources Management, UCO Bank, 3-4 D D Block, Sector-I, Salt Lake, P.O & P.S. Salt Lake District-24 Pargana (Kolkata)-700064. 5.Deputy General Manager (Personnel Services), Personnel Service Department, Head Office-2, 3-4 D D Block, Sector-I, Salt Lake, P.O & P.S. Salt Lake District-24 Pargana (Kolkata)-700064. …... Respondents ------ CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAMATH PATNAIK ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sinha, Adv. ------ C.A.V. on 09.03.2016 Pronounced on 19/05/2016 Per Pramath Patnaik, J.: In the accompanied writ application, prayer has been made for quashing order dated 23.06.2009 passed by respondent no. 5 pertaining to dismissal of the petitioner from services and the appellate order dated 17.06.2011 and further direction upon the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in services with all consequential benefits.

2. Sans details, the facts as disclosed in the writ application, is that the petitioner was selected for appointment on the post of Agricultural Field Officer in the Bank's Junior Management Grade Scale-I in the year 1980. It is relevant to mention here that the petitioner was not given any benefit of reserved category in the 2 matter of his appointment. But, on the basis of an anonymous letter, the Assistant General Manager directed the Manager of Gumla Branch to hold enquiry in the matter of Caste Certificate submitted by the petitioner. In turn, the Manager, Gumla Branch requested the Sub-Divisional Officer, Sadar, Ranchi vide letter dated 21.04.1981 to apprise about the genuineness of the Caste Certificate issued to the petitioner. Upon receipt of the report dated 15.05.1981 of the S.D.O, Sadar, Ranchi, the Manager, Gumla Branch submitted his report to the Assistant General Manager to the effect that Caste Certificate dated 30.07.1977 produced by the petitioner is genuine and not a false document, as reported by an unknown complainant. Thereafter, the services of the petitioner was confirmed in the Bank's Junior Management Grade Scale-I on 01.07.1982. It has further been submitted that in due course of time, after following the due process of selection, including written test followed by interview, vide letter dated 01.02.1994, the competent authority granted promotion to the petitioner to Middle Management Grade Scale -II w.e.f 15.01.1994. Subsequently, the petitioner was further promoted to the post of Middle Management Grade Scale-III w.e.f 17.07.2001. But, suddenly vide order dated 23.06.2009, the petitioner was served with the order of dismissal from bank's service, against which, he preferred appeal, which was also dismissed vide order dated 17.06.2011.

3. Being aggrieved by the impugned order of dismissal from services, the petitioner has approached this Court invoking extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances. 3 4. Heard Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for respondents-Bank.

5. Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted with vehemence that the impugned order of punishment of dismissal is vitiated on account of breach of principles of natural justice and in infraction of Article 14 and 311(2) of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the alleged charge on the basis of which the order of dismissal has been passed is a stale one as the impugned order of punishment has been passed after lapse of 29 years of services, which is not legally justifiable. Moreover, the impugned order of punishment of dismissal from services is harsh and is not sustainable in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that prior to issuance of impugned order no notice has been issued nor the allegation of forged certificate has been proved and the certificate which has not been declared as forged, in view of the report submitted on 19.05.1981 pursuant to the direction issued by the competent authority to ascertain the genuineness of the certificate, as per Annexure 4 to the writ application. So the order of dismissal after such distance of time, which has visited with civil consequence is not legally sustainable. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that once genuineness of the caste certificate has been decided and it was found to be genuine as back as on 19.05.1981 and thereafter the services of the petitioner was confirmed and even two successive promotions were given therefore, there is no justification on the part of the respondents to impose an 4 extreme punishment of dismissal that too without following the principles of natural justice.

6. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to a judgment rendered in the case of Raju Ramsing Vasave Vs. Mahesh Deorao Bhivapurkar & Ors as reported in (2008) 9SCC54 7. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the respondents-Bank reiterating the submissions made in the counter affidavit submitted that when the certificate of the petitioner was sent for verification, the Deputy Commissioner, Welfare Section, Ranchi vide letter dated 09.03.2007 stated that the petitioner belongs to Sarabak community, which is not coming under the category of Scheduled Tribe. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that a person procuring appointment in a post meant for reserved candidates, on the basis of false certificate is not a person holding civil post within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constituiton of India. Referring to the judgment rendered in the case of Regional Manager, Central Bank of India Vs. Madhulika Guruprasad Dahir & Ors in Civil Appeal No. 4638 of 2008, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that if the caste certificate furnished by the employee is found to be false, the very foundation of his appointment vanishes and his appointment was rendered illegal. His conduct renders him unfit to be continued in service and must necessarily entail termination.

8. Referring to the supplementary affidavit dated 05.09.2013, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that vide letter dated 09.08.1999, the petitioner was asked to submit detailed comments on the complaint that he submitted a fake caste certificate in the 5 Bank to get employment and he belonged to “Saravak (kisan)” sub- caste, which does not come under Schedule Tribe category, to which, the petitioner replied vide letter dated 10.08.1999 stating therein that the sub-caste “Kisan” is recognized as a Scheduled Tribe under the Constitution but failed to substantiate the same. Learned counsel for the respondent further referred to the letter dated 17.07.2000 of the Deputy Commissioner,Ranchi, in which, it is stated that as per report of the Circle Officer, Bundu, the petitioner belongs to Sarawak (Manjhi) Caste, which does not come within Scheduled Tribe Category.

9. After hearing learned counsel for the parties at length and on perusal of the documents available on record, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has been able to make out a case for interference for the following facts and reasons: (i).Admittedly, the impugned order of termination dated 23.06.2009 has been passed without complying the principles of natural justice as no notice or show cause was issued prior to termination. Therefore, the impugned order of dismissal from services is a nullity against all the canons of justice, equity and fair play. (ii).Moreover, after initial verification of the caste certificate in question, the respondents-bank on being satisfied confirmed the services of the petitioner way back in the year 1982 and consequently thereafter two promotions were given to the petitioner in the year 1994 and 2001 respectively. And after lapse of about three decades, the impugned order has been 6 passed by the respondents-bank, which is hit by doctrine of estoppel and waiver. (iii).Furthermore, it appears that the caste certificate has not been cancelled by any competent authority and the respondents- bank are not vested with any power to presume and to treat the said Caste Certificate to be fake or false in absence of any declaration to this effect. In the case at hand, relying upon an ex-parte of the Halka Karmchari and presuming the Caste Certificate of the petitioner to be forged and fake, the impugned order of punishment has been passed. Moreover, there is no cogent document to show that the Caste Certificate of the petitioner was declared to be forged and fake document. Therefore, the decision of the respondents to dispense with the services of the petitioner after rendering 29 years of services cannot be legally sustainable that too without adhering to the principles of natural justice and the petitioner having been inflicted with major punishment resulting with Civil consequences, the principles of audi alteram partem ought to have been scrupulously followed. (iv).The observations made by this Court gets fortified by the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court dated December 12, 2013 passed in the case of Shaline Vs. New English High Sch. Assn. & Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 10997 of 2013. (v).Reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on a notification dated 08.07.2004 of the Personnel, Administrative Reform & Rajbhasha Department, Government of Jharkhand, wherein after taking into consideration the case of 7 Madhuri Patil & Ors Vs. Additional Commissioner, Scheduled Tribe Development Council in S.L.P. (C) No. 147603 of 1993, it is resolved that the matter of fake and forged caste certificate has to be placed before the Screening Committee headed by Commissioner and Secretary, Social Welfare Department Or Welfare Department. But, in the instant case same procedure has not been followed.

10. Viewed thus, the petitioner is entitled to get protection against ouster from services, but no other benefit, hence, the impugned order dated 23.06.2009 passed by respondent no. 5 pertaining to dismissal of the petitioner from services and appellate order dated 17.06.2011 are hereby quashed and set aside. In the meantime, if the petitioner has not superannuated from services, he may be reinstated in services forthwith.

11. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. (Pramath Patnaik, J.) Alankar/-