THE UTTAR BIHAR GRAMIN BANK & ORS. versus NARENDRA KUMAR SINHA

Citation: [2018] 12 S.C.R. 751 · Decided: 03-10-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: UDAY UMESH LALIT · Disposal: Leave Granted & Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
751
THE UTTAR BIHAR GRAMIN BANK & ORS.
v.
NARENDRA KUMAR SINHA
(Civil Appeal No. 10180 of 2018)
OCTOBER 03, 2018
[ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, JJ.]
Service Law: Dismissal of respondent-employee on three
charges of misconduct in performance of official duties – Appellate
authority dismissed the appeal of respondent – Single judge of High
Court allowed the writ petition and remanded the case to the
appellate authority for fresh consideration – On remand, appellate
authority affirmed the dismissal order – Respondent again filed writ
petition – Single judge of High Court held that charge no.2 was not
proved and without expressing any opinion on charge no.1 and 3
again remanded the matter to appellate authority for rehearing on
charge no.1 and 3 – On appeal, Division Bench of High Court
remanded the case to the  Disciplinary authority holding that Single
judge erred in remanding the case to the appellate authority – Instant
appeal filed by the appellant-bank –  Held: Single Judge failed to
see that so far as charge Nos. 1 and 3 were concerned, both were
held proved against the employee in the departmental enquiry –
Single Judge was under legal obligation to examine each charge
independently and then record his findings on all the charges in
accordance with law –  Division Bench having noticed the said
error instead of rectifying the same erred in remanding the case to
the disciplinary authority instead of remanding it to the Single Judge
for deciding the writ petition on merits – The writ petition is,
therefore, restored to its original file – Single judge to decide the
writ petition afresh.
Disposing of the appeals, the Court
HELD:  The Single Judge erred in remanding the case to the
Appellate Authority. It is for the reason that the Single Judge
confined his examination only to charge No. 2 and held the same
as not proved whereas he failed to examine the case so far as
charge Nos. 1 and 3 are concerned. It should have been seen
751
[2018] 12 S.C.R. 751
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
752
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 12 S.C.R.
that so far as charge Nos. 1 and 3 are concerned, both were held
proved against the employee in the departmental enquiry. In these
circumstances, the Single Judge was under legal obligation to
examine each charge independently and then he should have
recorded his findings on all the charges in accordance with law. It
was, however, not done.  So far as the Division Bench is
concerned, they having noticed the said error committed by the
Single Judge instead of rectifying the same yet committed another
error by remanding the case to the disciplinary authority instead
of remanding it to the Single Judge for deciding the writ petition
on merits.  Remand of the case to disciplinary authority by the
Division Bench in the facts of this case was, therefore, unjustified.
[Paras 12-15]  [754-C-F]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 10180
of 2018
From the Judgment and Order dated  30.11.2017 passed by the
High Court of Judicature at Patna in LPA No. 96 of 2015
WITH
Civil Appeal Nos. 10182-10183 of 2018
Sunil Kumar, Sr. Adv.,  Vinay Navare, Ms. Gwen Kartika,
Satyajeet Kumar, Himanshu Shekhar, Ms. Rohini Prasad, Akshat
Chaitanya, Jamnesh Kumar, Advs. for the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, J. Leave granted in both the
S.L.Ps.
In Civil Appeal No10180 of 2018 @ S.L.P.(C) No. 4565/2018
1. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order
dated 30.11.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in
L.P.A. No.96 of 2015 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court
dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant-Bank and while modifying
the order of the Single Judge dated 26.09.2014 in C.W.J.C. No.25672 of
2013 remanded the case to the Disciplinary Authority for fresh
consideration.
2. Few facts need mention hereinbelow for the disposal of the
appeal, which involves a short point.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
753
3. The respondent-Narendra Kumar Sinha was in the
employment of the appellant-Bank. The appellant-Bank, by order dated
16.04.2011, dismissed the respondent-employee on 3 charges on the basis
of the misconduct committed by him in performance of official duties
after holding departmental enquiry as per the Service Rules. In the
departmental enquiry, all the 3 charges stood proved against the
respondent.
4. The respondent felt aggrieved and filed departmental appeal
before the Appellate Authority as prescribed under the service rules.
T

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