ANIL GILURKER versus BILASPUR RAIPUR KSHETRIA GRAMIN BANK & ANR.

Citation: [2011] 12 S.C.R. 618 · Decided: 15-09-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[201.1] 12 S.C.R. 618 
ANIL GILURKER 
v. 
BILASPUR RAIPUR KSHETRIA GRAMIN BANK & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 7864-7865 of 2011) 
SEPTEMBER 15, 2011 
[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 
1986 (2) SCR 957 
2009 (10) SCR 124 
Referred to 
Referred to 
Referred to 
Para 4 
Para 4 
Para 4 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
7864-7865 of 2011. 
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. 
_ 
c 
D 
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 
0 11.02.1989, the appellant submitted his written defence 
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

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.