1 2025:CGHC:8270-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 30 of 2025 1 - State Bank of Saurashtra Merge In The State Bank of India, Having Registered Office At State Bank Bhawan, Central Office, 8th Floor, Madame Cama Marg Mumbai (Maharashtra). 2 - Assistant Manager, State Bank of India (Saurashtra), Regional office, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). 3 - Assistant Manager, State Bank of India (Saurashtra), Reagan No. A- 4 Second Floor, Jeevan Deep Building-8, Sansad Marg, New Delhi – 110001. 4 - Branch Manager State Bank of Saurashtra, Raipur Branch, Agrasen Chowk, Ramsagar Para, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) Now Present State Bank Branch Agrasen Chowk, Raipur (C.G.). ... Appellants versus 1 - Mohd. Iqbal S/o Late Shri Sheikh Hasan, Aged About 45 Years Occupation Tereminated, Peon (Daftar) State Bank of Saurashtra, Raipur Branch, -- R/o Pandari Talab New Ganj Mandi Road Raipur, Tehsil And Distt. Raipur (C.G.). ... Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Harshal Chouhan, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.02.18 17:19:54 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 18.02.2025 1 Heard Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Harshal Chouhan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as Mr. Sunil Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the sole respondent. 2 I.A. No.02/2025 has been filed to condone delay of 58 days in preferring the writ appeal. 3 For the reasons assigned in the application (I.A. No.02/2025) supporting with the affidavit, the same is allowed. Delay of 58 days in preferring the writ appeal is hereby condoned. 4 By way of this writ appeal, appellants have prayed for following relief(s): “It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the records in W.P.(S) No.2052/2012 and may further pleased to set-aside the impugned order dated 15.07.2024 (Annexure A/1) passed by the Hon’ble Single Bench of this Hon’ble Court and be pleased to allow instant Writ Appeal in the interest of justice.” 3 5 The present intra Court appeal has been filed against the order dated 15.07.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S) No.2052 of 2012 (Mohd. Iqbal v. State Bank of India and others), whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/respondent is allowed. 6 The case projected by the writ petitioner/respondent before the learned Single Judge is that respondent was appointed to the post of Daftari (Peon) in the Bank of Saurashtra. He remained on unauthorized leave from 06.07.2006 to 16.12.2006. A notice was issued to him on 16.12.2006 to join the services within a period of one month. The letter was dispatched on 30.12.2006 and it was served upon the respondent on 03.01.2007. The respondent approached the authorities of the Bank of Saurashtra to join the services on 05.02.2007 but he was not permitted and immediately thereafter, on 07.02.2007, the order of voluntary retirement from services was passed. An appeal was preferred by the respondent before the Appellate Authority on 28.02.2007 but the same was dismissed vide order dated 06.07.2007. Thereafter, a writ petition bearing Writ Petition (S) No. 427 of 2008 was filed by the respondent, which was also dismissed as not maintainable vide order dated 22.01.2008. The Bank of Saurashtra got merged with the State Bank of India on 13.08.2008 pursuant to a policy decision. The respondent moved an application before the Chhattisgarh State Minority Commission, Raipur. Thereafter, he 4 applied for supplying certain documents under the Right to Information Act on 13.01.2009 before the authorities. 7 Being aggrieved with the action on the part of the appellants herein, the writ petitioner/respondent preferred a writ petition being WPS No.2052 of 2012 on 10.05.2012, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 15.07.2024. 8 Challenging the aforesaid order passed by the learned Single Judge in writ petition, the instant appeal has been filed by the appellants/State Bank of India. 9 Learned Senior counsel for the appellants-Bank submits that the learned Single Judge has erred in allowing the writ petition preferred by the respondent/writ petitioner, without considering the material facts, which has deliberately been concealed by him in the writ petition. He further submits that the learned Single Judge though has quashed the order of voluntary retirement dated 07.02.2007 as well as order of the Appellate Authority dated 06.07.2007, but has directed the authorities to reinstate the respondent with full back wages leaving it open to the authorities concerned to hold an enquiry afresh, if so advised. It has been contended that the Saurashtra Bank got merged with the State Bank of India on 13.08.2008 and a specific notification was issued in this regard. He referred to Clause 5 of the said notification and submitted that when this order was issued, no proceeding 5 between the respondent and the Saurashtra Bank was pending before any Court of law. It has been further contended that the order of voluntary retirement was passed on 07.02.2007, the appeal filed by the respondent was dismissed on 06.07.2007 and thereafter the, respondent has preferred the writ appeal only 10.05.2012 i.e. after 5 years and there is no explanation with regard to delay. He has submitted that the respondent has remained unauthorizedly absent from services and therefore, the impugned order of voluntary retirement was passed against him. He has further submitted that the show cause notices were issued to the respondent on 06.09.2006 and 16.12.2006 and he was granted one month time to join the services, but he failed. He argued that even after the expiry of the one-month period, the respondent did not appear before the appellants-Bank and therefore, a decision was taken to pass an order of voluntary retirement. He further argued that since the respondent did not join the services, no departmental inquiry was conducted, hence, the appeal be allowed and a direction be issued to conduct departmental inquiry against the respondent. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Syndicate Bank v. General Secretary, Syndicate Bank Staff Association and another reported in (2000) 5 SCC 65 to contend that learned Single Judge has erred in passing the impugned order dated 15.07.2024, which needs interference by this Court. 6 10 On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent opposes the submissions of learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants and submits that the departmental appeal preferred by the writ petitioner/respondent was dismissed on 06.07.2007, thereafter, he moved an application before the Bank authorities for supplying the relevant documents including the order passed by the appellate authority and those documents were supplied in the month of April, 2012 and immediately thereafter, he filed the writ petition. He further submits that the order of voluntary retirement was passed against him without affording any opportunity of hearing even though no show cause notice was issued to him. It has been contended that the respondent remained on leave for a period of 159 days i.e. from 06.07.2006 to 16.12.2006 and pursuant to the notice issued by the Bank, he approached the Bank to join the services, but he was not permitted to join on 05.02.2007 and on 07.02.2007, the order imposing punishment of voluntary retirement was passed. It has been further contended that learned Single Judge after appreciating all the material fact has rightly allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent, which does not warrant any interference. 11 We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the impugned order and materials available on record. 12 After appreciating the facts and circumstances of the case as well as after considering the arguments advanced on behalf of the 7 respective parties, learned Single Judge has passed the following order:- “6. Admittedly, the petitioner was an employee of the Bank of Saurashtra and at the relevant time, he was appointed to the post of Daftari (Peon). The Bank of Saurashtra got merged with the State Bank of India vide order dated 13.08.2008. Clause 5 provides that the proceedings, cause of actions, suits, decrees etc. pending between the Bank and the other persons would be dealt with as per this clause. It reads as under:- “5. Any proceeding or cause of actions, suits, decrees, recovery certificates, appeals and all other legal proceedings pending before any court or tribunal or any authority by or against the Transferor Bank may, as from the effective date, be continued and enforced by or against the Transferee Bank in which the Transferor Bank has vested by virtue of this Order as it might have been enforced by or against the 8 Transferor Bank as if bthis Order had not been in force and shall cease to be enforceable by or against the Transferor Bank.” 7. From a bare reading of this clause, it is quite vivid that the transferee bank would be liable to satisfy the claim pursuant to any order decree, judgment etc., if any proceeding remained pending on 13.08.2008 and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has given emphasis on this clause. Mr. Patel, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has argued that as on 13.08.2008, no lis was pending between the petitioner and the Bank of Saurashtra, therefore the claim of the petitioner raised in the year 2012 would not be maintainable and the State Bank of India would not be liable to satisfy the claim of the petitioner. 8. The contention raised by Mr. Patel appears to be misconceived. The petitioner was an employee of the Bank of Saurashtra and before the issuance of the order of 9 merger dated 13.08.2008, the order of voluntary retirement was passed against the petitioner. For the sake of argument, if any order of removal, suspension or any order imposing penalty would have been passed on 12.08.2008, in such a situation, it would not have been possible for an employee to raise any dispute prior to 30.08.2008. The petitioner was an employee of Bank of Saurashtra which got merged with the State Bank of India, therefore, the claim of the petitioner against the State Bank of India would be maintainable and any order passed in such type of cases would be binding upon the State Bank of India. 9. With regard to the delay part, the order of voluntary retirement was passed by the authority on 07.02.2007, an appeal was preferred by the petitioner on 28.02.2007 and when it was not decided by the appellate authority, a Writ Petition (S) No.467 of 2008 was filed before this Court which was ultimately dismissed holding that it was not maintainable. It was also communicated to 10 the petitioner that the appeal preferred by him was dismissed vide order dated 06.07.2007. It is informed by Mr. Sahu, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 06.07.2007 was supplied to the petitioner on an application moved under the Right to Information Act. Further, the petitioner in para 7 of the writ petition has stated that an application was moved before the Chhattisgarh Minority Commission, Raipur against the order of voluntary retirement. It appears that the application remained pending there, and therefore, the petitioner could not file the writ petition challenging the order passed by the appellate authority immediately after 13.01.2009. The respondents have not denied the contents of para 7 specifically. Though the petitioner has not annexed any document to demonstrate that any proceeding remained pending before the Chhattisgarh State Minority Commission, taking into consideration the fact that the major punishment of voluntary retirement 11 was imposed, the delay would not come in the way of dispensation of justice and the objection raised by Mr. Patel is hereby overruled. 10. From a perusal of the order of voluntary retirement, it is quite vivid that the same was passed since the petitioner remained unauthorizedly absent from services for a period of 159 days. The show cause notices were issued twice to the petitioner and on 05.02.2007, when the petitioner approached the respondent authorities to join services, he was not permitted, as pleaded by the petitioner in the petition. Later on, the order impugned dated 07.02.2007 regarding voluntary retirement was passed. 11. Admittedly, the order passed on 07.02.2007 is stigmatic and punitive in nature and the same has been passed without holding any inquiry, even the article of charges was not issued to the petitioner. 12. The petitioner was a regular employee of the respondent/Bank and it is not a case that the notices were not served upon the 12 petitioner or he never appeared before the respondent/Bank. 13. The provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised by the Bank authorities as it is not a case wherein the whereabouts of the petitioner were not known to the Bank authorities. 14. Since no show cause notice was issued; no article of charges was issued; no inquiry was conducted; and, a major penalty was imposed, in the opinion of this Court, the order of voluntary retirement dated 07.02.2007 and the order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 06.07.2007 are liable to be and are hereby quashed. The respondent authorities are directed to reinstate the petitioner with full back wages, however, the authority concerned would be at liberty to hold an inquiry afresh, if so advised. 15. The petition is accordingly allowed. No cost(s).” 13 13 In the matter of Syndicate Bank (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the similar issue of has held as follows :- “14. Two principles emerge from the decision (1) principles of natural justice and duty to act in just, fair and reasonable manner have to be read in Certified Standing Orders which have statutory force. These can be applied by Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal even to relations between management and workman though based on contractual obligation; and (2) where domestic inquiry was not held or it was vitiated or some reason the Tribunal or Court adjudicating an industrial dispute can itself go into the question raised before it on the basis of the evidence and other material on record. 15. In the present case action was taken by the Bank under Clause 16 of the Bipartite Settlement. It is not disputed that Dayananda absented himself from the work for a period of 90 or more consecutive days. It was thereafter that the Bank served a notice on him calling upon to report for duty within 30 days of the notice stating therein the grounds 14 for the Bank to come to be conclusion that Dayananda had no intention of joining duties. Dayananda did not respond to the notice at all. On the expiry of the notice period Bank passed orders that Dayananda had voluntarily retired from the service of the Bank.” 14 After hearing learned counsel appearing for the parties and considering the grounds and materials available on record, learned Single Judge has allowed WPS No.2052 of 2012 holding that since no show cause notice was issued; no article of charges was issued; no inquiry was conducted; and, a major penalty was imposed, the order of voluntary retirement dated 07.02.2007 and the order passed by the Appellate Authority dated 06.07.2007 are liable to be and are hereby quashed and the authorities are directed to reinstate the respondent with full back wages, however, the authority concerned would be at liberty to hold an inquiry afresh, if so advised. 15 The requirements of principles of natural justice, which are required to be observed? These are : (1) workman should know the nature of the complaint or accusation; (2) an opportunity to state his case; and (3) the management should act in good faith which means that the action of the management should be fair, reasonable and just. All these three criteria have been fully met in 15 the present case. It is no point laying stress on the principles of natural justice without understanding their scope or real meaning. There are two essential elements of natural' justice which are : (a) no man shall be judge in his own cause; and (b) no man shall be condemned, either civilly or criminally, without being afforded an opportunity of being heard in answer to the charge made against him. In course of time by various judicial pronouncements these two principles of natural justice have been expanded, e.g., a party must have due notice when the Court/Tribunal will proceed; Court/Tribunal should not act on irrelevant evidence or shut out relevant evidence; if the Court/Tribunal consists of several members they all must sit together at all times; Court/Tribunal should act independently and should not be biased against any party; its action should be based on good faith and order and should act in just, fair and reasonable manner. These in fact are the extensions or refinements of the main principles of natural justice stated above. 16 In the case at hand, the order of voluntary retirement was passed on 07.02.2007, the appeal filed by the respondent was dismissed on 06.07.2007 and thereafter the, respondent has preferred the writ petition only 10.05.2012 i.e. after 5 years and there is no explanation with regard to delay. It has been reflected from the record that show cause notices were issued to the respondent on 06.09.2006 and 16.12.2006 and he was granted one month time 16 to join the services, but he failed and even after the expiry of the one-month period, the respondent did not appear before the appellants-Bank and therefore, a decision was taken to pass an order of voluntary retirement on 07.02.2007. Under these circumstances it was not necessary for the Bank to hold any inquiry before passing the order. An inquiry would have been necessary if the respondent had submitted his explanation which was not acceptable to the Bank or contended that he did report for duty but was not allowed to joint by the Bank. Nothing of the like has happened here. Assuming for a moment that inquiry was necessitated, record of the case clearly showed that notice was given to the respondent and it is he who defaulted and offered no explanation of his absence from duty and did not report for duty within 30 days the notice as required in Clause 16 of the Bipartite Settlement. 17 This undue reliance on the principles of natural justice by the Court/Tribunal and even by the High Court has certainly led to miscarriage of justice as far as Bank is concerned. Conduct of Mohd. Iqbal as an employee of the Bank has been astounding. It was not a case where the Court should have given any relief to the respondent and yet the Bank was directed to reinstate him with all back wages. 18 Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to affirm the part of the order of the learned 17 Single Judge wherein the learned Single Judge has directed the authorities to hold an inquiry afresh, if so advised. 19 Insofar as the other part of the order, in which the learned Single Judge has given a direction to the Bank authorities to reinstate the respondent with all back wages is concerned, the same is liable to be and is hereby set-aside. The Bank authorities are directed to conduct a departmental inquiry as has been ordered by the learned Single Judge and conclude the same within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment. 20 In the result, the writ appeal is allowed in part and impugned order dated 15.07.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPS No.2052 of 2012 is hereby quashed to the extent indicated herein-above. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu