Virender Kumar Gaur v. State Bank of India & Ors.

1. This is a regular second appeal which is pending for the last four years. No substantial question of law has been formulated till date.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant on the question of substantial question of law. Before dealing with his submissions, it would be pertinent to give the brief background of the case.

3. The appellant was working in the State Bank of India, New Delhi as Officer Junior Management Scale-I and at the relevant time was 2013:DHC:808 posted at Indira Gandhi International Airport Extension Counter. The primary duty of the appellant at the said extension counter was related to the foreign exchange dealings and receiving of custom duties at the extension counter. On 20th May, 1986, some of the officials of the Directorate of Enforcement, New Delhi inspected the extension counter of Indira Gandhi International Airport of the State Bank of India and found a bag containing foreign exchange of US $800 and Saudi Riyan 8350 of the appellant. The said recovery from the personal bag of the appellant was effected and the same was treated in violation of FERA Act and the rules framed thereunder as the appellant was not able to give any satisfactory answer for his personal possession of the foreign exchange. The appellant was arrested by the officials of Directorate of Enforcement on 30.5.1986 and produced before the learned ACMM, New Delhi. The appellant was remanded to judicial custody and ultimately was able to get his bail on 13.6.1986. The appellant was detained under COFEPOSA on 30.5.86 and the order of preventive detention was quashed after seven months in pursuance to the WP no.260/1986. As per the provisions of FERA, adjudication proceedings were initiated against the appellant and a penalty of `21,000/- was imposed on him vide order dated 27.3.1991. This was challenged by the appellant by way of an appeal and in the appeal vide order dated 25.3.2008, the aforesaid penalty was reduced to `11,000/-.

4. On account of these facts, the appellant was suspended by the State Bank of India and departmental enquiry was initiated against him. An Enquiry officer was appointed and charges were framed against him for major penalty. The bank examined four witnesses against him namely Sh.N.P.Seshan (PW-1), Sh.S.B.Nigam (PW-2), Sh.K.K.Sharma (PW-3) & Sh.R.K.Handoo (PW-4) and exhibited number of documents. In these departmental proceedings, the appellant was visited with punishment of dismissal, after following the due process of law.

5. The appellant preferred an appeal against the order of dismissal, which was also dismissed. He filed a suit for declaration stating that enquiry report dated 30.3.1993 and the order dated 16.6.94 passed by the appellate authority upholding his dismissal are bad in law.

6. The said suit was contested by the respondent/SBI on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- “(i) Whether the suit is time barred under the law of limitation? OPD

(ii) Whether the suit is barred under the provisions of the Specific Relief Act? OPD

(iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of declaration as prayed for in the suit? OPP

(iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of mandatory injunction as prayed for in the suit? OPP

(v) Relief.

7. The suit was decided against the appellant. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal before the appellate Court bearing RCA no.13/2003 titled Sh.Virender Kumar Gaur Vs. State Bank of India & Anr. The appellate Court upheld the order of the trial court dismissing the suit for declaration and declined the relief of declaring the enquiry report or the punishment of dismissal as bad in law. This punishment was imposed by the disciplinary authority and confirmed by the appellate authority.

8. Still feeling dissatisfied, the appellant has preferred the present second regular appeal.

9. The appellant in the said appeal has formulated as many as 26 questions of law.

10. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. He has made submissions with regard to the re-appreciation of evidence and contended that these are all questions of law which are arising from the said appeal. He has also placed reliance in case titled Kumaon Mandal Vikas Nigam Ltd. Vs. Girija Shankar Pandey AIR 2000 SC 24.

11. I have gone through the said judgment. In the judgment cited, the question which was involved was as to –‘whether there are allegations of bias which are levelled against the Managing Director for the purpose of imposing punishment of dismissal on the General Manager were made out or not?’ The Apex Court in this context had noted the fact that the General Manager who was the delinquent employee in the said case was able to establish that his case was hit by bias on the part of the Managing Director inasmuch as the sequence of events in that case showed that the Managing Director was not favourable towards him. In order to arrive at such a conclusion, the Apex Court noted the fact that when the show cause notice was served on the General Manager, documents were not given; when the enquiry was held, no date was fixed for examining the witnesses and no presenting officer was appointed. Reply to the enquiry report was sought immediately on the next date. Dismissal order was passed within a few hours after personal hearing having been given by the Managing Director. Under these circumstances, it was observed that the managing director had acted in ‘Hottest haste’ and therefore, the decision of the disciplinary authority suffered from bias.