Present:
(Hon'ble Mr. Acting Chief Justice Amitava Lala and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel) Appearance For the appellant : Mr. Janardan Yadav For the respondents : Mr. Vivek Ratan Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J. This special appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 13.12.2011, whereby the writ petition of the appellant was dismissed. The learned Single Judge has upheld the dismissal order dated 24.11.2010 of the appellant and the order of the appellate authority dated 30/31.03.2011.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the appellant's services were illegally terminated and the Appellate Authority without application of mind rejected the appeal of the appellant. His writ petition has also been dismissed without adverting to various issues raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He has urged that on the perusal of the impugned order of learned Single Judge it is evident that the Writ petition has been dismissed only in one paragraph of the order and the rest of the order is references of the various judgements.
He urged that imposing the major penalty of dismissal entails serious consequences resulting deprivation of one's livelihood. Therefore, if the order is arbitrary and illegal, it violates fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution also.
In view of the aforesaid submissions, there were two options before us. Firstly, to ask the learned counsel for the appellant to move a recall application before the learned Single Judge as he has submitted that his submissions were not considered by the learned Single Judge, secondly to give him opportunity to address us on all the points. We opted the second option.
The facts leading up to the present appeal are briefly as follows:
The appellant was initially appointed in the year 1999 as driver/peon in the Union Bank of India at Tara Mandal Branch, Gorakhpur. He was deputed the work to lay the drinking water to the official as well as to lay the register and files before the officials on demand.
On 26.10.2009 one Smt. Radhika Tripathi opened a SB A/c No. 1972 in the said branch. On the next day viz. 27.10.2009, she again came to the Branch and submitted an application for cheque book and ATM card. The Bank issued her ATM card. It is stated that while leaving the branch she inadvertently left the envelope containing ATM card on the table of the appellant. After few months, on 8.2.2010, her husband visited the branch and found that there were fraudulent withdrawals from her account through ATM card. The matter was immediately reported to Branch Manager. An FIR was also lodged. The details of the withdrawals are mentioned here under:
Date of Withdrawal Amount 26/12/2009 Rs. 20,000/-
01/01/.2010 Rs. 20,000/-
13/01/2010 Rs. 20,000/-
14/01/2010 Rs. 10,000/-
20/01/2010 Rs. 20,000/-
30/01/2010 Rs. 8,000/-
On receiving the said complaint, the footage of CC T.V. installed at the main door of the branch was scrutinized. The scrutiny of the footage of the CC T.V. revealed the suspicious activity of the appellant in connection with the fraudulent ATM withdrawals.
The Branch Manager reported the matter to the superior authorities. The Chief Manager (P) disciplinary authority FGMO, Lucknow by his order dated 30.3.2010 appointed one M.G. Hunure, Senior Manager (P), RO, Kanpur to make the enquiry against the appellant.
A charge sheet dated 30.3.2010 was issued to the appellant containing two charges. First charge was in respect of the fraudulent withdrawal of Rs. 98,000/- by misusing the ATM card issued to Smt. Radhika Tripathi and it was alleged that during interrogation he admitted having withdrawn Rs. 98,000/- from the SB A/c of Smt. Tripathi on different dates by misusing her ATM card. Further he has reimbursed/deposited the entire amount so withdrawn by him. The second charge was with respect of breach of rules of business of the Bank and instruction for running of any department. A copy of the charge sheet is on the record as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. The Bank permitted the appellant to appoint any officer to defend his case by letter dated 25.7.2010. One Sri P.C. Pandey, Joint General Secretary, UBEU and Head Cashier, Sahebganj Branch, Gorakhpur was permitted to defend him.
The appellant submitted his reply dated 26.09.2010 to the charge sheet. In his reply, he vehemently denied the charges levelled against him. He took a defence that he had falsely been implicated in the matter. In fact the Branch Manager himself was involved in the fraud. He had stated that on 15.2.2010, the Branch Manager called him in his Chamber and told him that he had committed a mistake and there was no way out. He requested the appellant to save him from the said embarrassing situation, if appellant takes the responsibility of the episode and admits the guilt; the entire amount would be returned by him and he will save appellant if any action is taken against him. The appellant accepted the request of the Bank Manager and he signed some confession papers prepared by the Bank Manager (MEX-4). The Bank Manager also got two other papers signed by the appellant. On 15.2.2010 Rs. 18,000/- (MEX-5) was deposited by the Bank Manager and on 7.2.2012 he again deposited Rs. 35,000/- (MEX-6).
The appellant further took the stand that from the CC T.V. Camera footage nowhere it is shown that the appellant was withdrawing the money from the machine. The appellant has been shown only talking over his cell phone at the entrance of the Bank. In fact on 26.12.2009 the brother of the appellant Jhinku Lal had died and said information was received by him while he was in the Bank. For the said reason he was making the arrangements of funeral of his brother and he was giving instructions to his family members over his cell phone and those anxious moments of the appellant were caught in the CC T.V. Camera footage. The said footage was being misapprehended by the Bank officials. And it was used as evidence against the appellant. Apart from the CC T.V. footage there was no eye witness or documentary evidence to prove that the appellant was involved in any manner in the said fraudulent act.
In the disciplinary proceeding, the Management produced Branch Manager Sri O.P. Agarwal (MW-1). In his statement he submitted that on 09.02.2009 local police approached the Branch Manager and informed about the receipt of the complaint regarding withdrawal of the amount through ATM. The Branch Manager then scrutinized the CC T.V. Camera footage which was installed near the A.T.M. He had also called the Deputy Security Officer from the regional office for investigation. During investigation it was found that CC T.V. Camera installed at branch entrance has recorded suspicious movements of the appellant and it was co-related with the timing of the withdrawal of the amount from ATM. He further deposed that the appellant initially denied having withdrawn the amount from ATM. However, when he was informed about his suspicious movement of going towards ATM, which was caught by CC T.C. Footage, he admitted having withdrawn the amount and thereafter he admitted the allegation in presence of some officers and submitted the confession letter (MEX-4), agreeing to refund the amount of Rs. 98,000/-. On the same day be brought Rs. 18,000/- which he handed over to the Branch Manager with a letter (MEX-5) that balance amount of Rs. 80,000/- will be refunded within three days. The Branch Manager further deposed that recovery instalment was held in sundry account and after getting/receiving the full amount, he prepared the pay order dated 03.03.2010 (MEX-16) and handed over to the account holder with her proper acknowledgement.
The appellant's defence representative cross examined the Branch Manager. In his cross examination, he stated that he had not entrusted the work of issuing ATM card to the appellant. Thus appellant had not violated any rules of the Bank. It was the duty of the accountant to issue ATM cards. The accountant had informed him that the appellant used to help him in writing the names and numbers in the register.
He has further stated that SMS facility was granted to the account holder but she had given the mobile number of her father-in-law who was not conversant with SMS etc. On the inquiry with the father-in-law of the account holder, it was revealed that he had ignored the messages as he used to receive many disturbing messages from other companies. Bank Manager also stated that the confession letter given by the appellant was not under coercion/pressure.
The Bank had also got examined Sri D.K. Singh, RCC who was posted in the regional office Gorakhpur, and who had made inquiry at Tara Mandal Branch. In his statement, he has deposed that during investigation, the appellant admitted having committed the mistake as he was in need of funds/money and agreed to refund the entire money and he requested the Branch Manager to forgive him being his first mistake. He also proved the confession letter (MEX-4) which was given to the Branch Manager in his presence and some other officers Sri Kulbushan, Accountant, Sri D.K. Singh, RCC Incharge Regional Officer, Gorakhpur and Captain R.K. Kushwaha, Manager (Security) Regional Officer Gorakhpur. The Bank had also cross examined Sri R.K. Kushwaha, Manager (Security) as MW-3. His statement was on the same line, as deposed by the Branch Manager and MW-3, Sri D.K. Singh.
The appellant did not produce any evidence in his defence. He had only stated that prior to his posting at Tara Manda Branch from September, 2009, he was personal driver at Regional Head Office, Gorakhpur for ten years and he had sincerely and honestly worked as personal driver because of the same he was appointed as Peon/Hamal in the Bank service and posted at Tara Mandal Branch he denied charges/allegations levelled against him.
In his submission he stated that the confession letter (MEX-4) taken by the Branch Manager was under pressure and at the instance of the Branch Manager.
The Inquiry Officer in his report found that both the charges were established by deposition of the Branch Manager Sri D.K.Singh (MW-3) and the footage of the CC. T.V. Camera (MEX-15). He has also recorded a finding that the confession was made by the appellant in presence of Sri O.P. Agarwal, Branch Manager (MW-1), Sri Kulbhushan, Accountant, Sri R.K. Kushwaha, Manager (Security) Regional Officer Gorakhpur (MW-3), Sri D.K. Singh, RCC, Regional Office, Gorakhpur (MW-2). The Inquiry Officer further found that the appellant was guilty of gross misconduct i.e. committing acts prejudicial to the interest of the Bank. He was also guilty of the minor misconduct i.e. breach of rule of business of the Bank and inspection for running the department.
On 1.11.2010 the disciplinary authority issued a notice to the appellant along with a copy of the inquiry report/findings dated 4.10.2010, a copy of the show cause notice is annexed as Annexure -7 to the writ petition. Appellant through his defence representative submitted his reply dated 09.11.2010. In his reply, he stated that the findings of the Inquiry Officer are perverse and the Inquiry Officer full ignored the points raised by him. Therefore, the findings are not reliable. He has also submitted that the management did not produce the complainant which has deprived the defence to cross examine the complainant. Therefore, the complaint itself is not reliable. He has also blamed that had there been proper control and supervision by the Branch Manager. He further took the plea that the ATM card has not been recovered and there is no direct evidence against the appellant. The inquiry report is based on mere suspicion and the copy of the FIR/Police complaint was not produced by the Management.
Having considered the inquiry report and the reply to the show cause notice, the disciplinary authority by order dated 24.10.2010 passed order of dismissal of the appellant as he accepted the findings and the inquiry report. In its brief order the disciplinary authority rejected the plea taken by the appellant. The disciplinary authority found that the charges against the appellant of gross misconduct was proved and he imposed punishment of dismissal of appellant from the service of the Bank without notice. He also found that that charge of minor misconduct for breach of rules of the business of the Bank was also found to be proved and warning was issued against the said charge.
The appellant was not found to be entitled for any pay and allowance for the period of suspension except the subsistence allowance which has already paid to him. A copy of the order of disciplinary authority dated 24.11.2010 is annexed as Annexure-9 to the writ petition.
Feeling aggrieved by the order of the disciplinary authority, the appellant submitted an appeal dated 31.10.2010 to the Appellate Authority, General Manager (P & HR). The Appellate Authority by order dated 30.03.2012 rejected the appeal of the appellant. The said order was passed after giving the personal hearing to the appellant. The Appellate Authority has noted that he has reiterated what has been stated by him in his defence during the course of inquiry. The Appellate Authority was convinced that the punishment of dismissal from service of the Bank imposed on him by the disciplinary authority is co-related with the nature of the gravity of misconduct conceded by him. Therefore, he did not find any reason to interfere with the order of disciplinary authority. Accordingly, his appeal was rejected.
Dissatisfied by the order of the appellate authority, the petitioner preferred the writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India before this Court being Writ A No. 71737 of 2011 (Kanhaiya Gaur (Gond) Vs. Union Bank of India & Others) which came to be dismissed by learned Single Judge by the impugned order dated 13.12.2011. The learned Singe Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that petitioner had admitted the withdrawal of Rs. 98,000/- and subsequently reimbursed the entire amount which was illegally withdrawn by him.
Learned Single Judge has also recorded that the petitioner has nowhere shown these findings perverse or contrary to record.
We have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the Bank.
The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Single Judge has not given any reason for dismissal of writ petition. He has simply recorded his conclusion that the appellant is guilty and his conclusion is based only on the alleged admission of the appellant. He has further submitted that the major penalty of the dismissal has been imposed on the appellant. The matter relates to the violation of fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, therefore, the learned single judge ought to have considered the submissions and facts of the case. He further submitted that non recording of reason itself is arbitrary and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. He further urged that only in two paragraphs of the judgement, the entire disciplinary proceeding has been dealt with. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the charges levelled against the appellant were not proved at all. There was allegation against the Branch Manager that he himself was involved in the incident and as such, his statement ought to have been discarded by the inquiry officer and the disciplinary authority. He has further urged that CC T.V. footage (MEX-15) also does not reveal the involvement of the appellant as the appellant was not shown in those footage withdrawing the money from the ATM machine. It only shows that the appellant was talking over his cell phone near the main entrance of the Branch. He submitted that during the inquiry, the appellant has explained that footage as on the date when the brother of the appellant died and he had received the said information while he was on duty in the bank on the said date. He was very sad and in those nervous moments he was giving instructions to his close relatives regarding the arrangement of funeral of his brother. The footage of those moments has been mis-interpreted by the inquiry officer by saying that the appellant was nervous and his activities in that footage were suspicious.
Learned counsel for the appellant further urged that the issuance of the ATM card was not his part of duty. The Manager of the bank did not produce any documentary evidence to indicate that the said work was ever entrusted to him. In fact the accountant issues the ATM cards to the customers and in this case also the accountant had issued the ATM cards to the account holders. Therefore, the allegations that the account holder inadvertently left her ATM card at the table of the appellant were unbelievable and ought to have been rejected by the inquiry officer.
Learned counsel for the Bank has submitted that the appellant has made a confession in the presence of some officers and he has refunded the entire money and as such the confession of the inquiry officer with regard to his misconduct does not warrant any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
We have heard learned counsel for the appellant at length and learned counsel for the Bank.
It is true that the learned Single Judge has recorded only his conclusion and his conclusion is not supported by any reason. We have carefully examined the records. The detail facts we have mentioned in foregoing paragraphs. It is a common ground that an account holder Smt. Radhika Tripathi made a complaint with regard to fraudulent withdrawal of money from her bank account which she had opened on 26.10.2009. On 27.10.2009 she inadvertently left the envelope containing the ATM card. After four months on opening the account on 08.02.2010, her husband visited the bank and after examining the pass book, he had immediately lodged an oral complaint that there were six fraudulent withdrawals from the account of his wife on different dates. Details of the dates and amount of the withdrawal have been mentioned by us in the earlier part of the order.
A perusal of the reply of the appellant dated 26.09.2010 and the written submissions submitted by his legal representative indicates that the denial of the confession of the appellant is not worthy of credence. The confession letter dated 15.02.2010 is in the writing of the appellant and he has not denied his signature on the confession letter in the disciplinary proceeding. The appellant had cross examined all three witnesses apart from the Branch Manaer, O.P. Agarwal two other witnesses Sri D.K. Singh (MW-2) who was posted in the regional office Gorakhpur and Captain P.K. Kushwaha, Manger Security, (MW-3) who was also posted in the Regional Head Office Gorakhpur came to the branch and they made investigation in the matter. Both the officers in their statement have categorically mentioned the fact that in their presence, the appellant had made the confession and wrote the confession letter. There is nothing in the cross-examination which may lead to disbelieve the aforesaid evidence. Thus the finding of the inquiry officer with regard to confession of the appellant does not suffer any error.
We have carefully examined the statements of all the witnesses and their cross-examinations. All the three witness have made very clear, concise and categorical statements with regard to the confession made by the appellant. The appellant did not produce any evidence to prove that the confession letter which bears his signatures was under duress or pressure. Thus, we find that the appellant is guilty on the first charge. The finding of the Inquiry Officer does not suffer any illegality.
As regards the finding of the inquiry officer that from the footage of CC T.V. camera, the involvement of the appellant is proved, we find that the said finding is unsustainable. Indisputably, the appellant was not shown in the said footage withdrawing the amount from the ATM machine. The finding of the inquiry officer on this issue is based on suspicion. The defence of the appellant that on 26.02.2010 his brother died and he was talking over cell phone giving the instructions to his close relatives for the funeral arrangement of his brother has not been denied by the Management in the disciplinary proceeding. The inquiry officer has not given any reason to discard the defence of appellant.
We are surprised that why there was no CC T.V. installed covering the ATM machine. The CC TV covered the main entrance of the Bank only. Thus only on the basis of some footage at the entrance of the Bank it cannot be said that his movements were found to be suspicious.
As regards the finding of Inquiry Officer on second charge, we find that said charge is not proved at all.
The Bank Manager (MW-1) in his cross examination has admitted the fact that appellant did not violate any rule. His statement so far material is set out below. "He has not violated any rules in this regard of the Bank."
No documentary evidence was on record to indicate that the appellant was assigned the duty of helping the accountant in issuance of ATM cards to the customers.
Other two witnesses MW-2 & MW-3 were not the officers of the Bank of Tara Mandal Branch. They were posted at the Regional Office Gorakhpur. In their statement they have not stated any fact with regard to nature of duty of the appellant.
In view of the aforesaid facts, in our view, the finding of the inquiry officer and the order of disciplinary authority in respect of minor misconduct which has been found to be proved and a punishment of warranting was issued to the appellant was illegal as it was not supported by any evidence on record. The second charge was not proved at all. But the charge number one is proved beyond any doubt.
The Supreme Court has time and again emphasized the importance of financial probity in Bank Services. It is an inbuilt requirement for the functioning of the banking system. The officers and employees of bank act as trustee of the people's faith and confidence in the banking system and if the officer/employee commits misconduct and if it is found that for his personal gain, he has acted against the interest of the depositor, he must be dealt with iron hands and does not deserve to be dealt with any sympathy.
In Civil Appeal No. 657 of 2012 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 21192 of 2007) Burdwan Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Asim Chatterjee & Ors. decided on 18.01.2012, the Supreme Court had occasion to deal with an employee of the cooperative bank. In the said case also, the employee of Raipur Krishi Unnayan Samity which was a cooperative society affiliated to Burdwan Central Cooperative Bank was found guilty of the financial irregularities in maintaining the accounts of the Society. In that case also there was a letter of confession by the employee and on the conclusion of disciplinary proceeding, he was found guilty of the charges brought against him.
The disciplinary authority passed the order of dismissal. Aggrieved by the said order, the employee filed a writ petition in Calcutta High Court. The writ petition was allowed. Aggrieved by the order of learned Single Judge, the Bank preferred First Miscellaneous Appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge before the Division Bench. The appeal of the Bank was also dismissed. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge and Division Bench, the Cooperative Bank filed Special Leave Appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court allowed the Special Leave Appeal. The observation of the Supreme Court is apt for our purposes.
"This is, in fact, a case where the order of punishment had been passed against the Respondent No.1 on allegations of financial irregularity. Such an allegation would require serious consideration as to whether the services of an employee against whom such allegations have been raised should be retained in the service of the Bank. Since a Bank acts in a fiduciary capacity in regard to people's investments, the very legitimacy of the banking system depends on the complete integrity of its employees."
In another case in State Bank of India Vs. Ramesh Dinkar Punde, (2006) 7 SCC 212, the Supreme Court has taken the similar view. The relevant paragraphs of the order are quoted below:
"18. In Chairman and MD, United Commercial Bank v. P.C. Kakkar this Court held at SCC pp. 376-77, para 14 as under:
"14. A bank officer is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity. He deals with the money of the depositors and the customers. Every officer/employee of the bank is required to take all possible steps to protect the interests of the bank and to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and to do nothing which is unbecoming of a bank officer. Good conduct and discipline are inseparable from the functioning of every officer/employee of the bank. As was observed by this Court in Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager v. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik it is no defence available to say that there was no loss or profit resulted in case, when the officer/employee acted without authority. The very discipline of an organisation more particularly a bank is dependent upon each of its officers and officers acting and operating within their allotted sphere. Acting beyond one's authority is by itself a breach of discipline and is a misconduct. The charges against the employee were not casual in nature and were serious. These aspects do not appear to have been kept in view by the High Court."
21. ...............It is for this reason that when a bank officer commits misconduct, as in the present case, for his personal ends and against the interest of the bank and the depositors, he must be dealt with iron hands and he does not deserve to be dealt with leniently."
In the case of Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank v. P.C. Kakkar, (2003) 4 SCC 364 a submission was made before the Supreme Court that on account of misconduct of the employee, the bank did not suffer any loss. The said submission was rejected by the Supreme Court and it was held that the conduct and discipline are unseparable from the functioning of the bank employee. The relevant part of the observation of the Supreme Court reads as follows:
"14. A bank officer is required to exercise higher standards of honesty and integrity. He deals with the money of the depositors and the customers. Every officer/employee of the bank is required to take all possible steps to protect the interests of the bank and to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence and to do nothing which is unbecoming of a bank officer. Good conduct and discipline are inseparable from the functioning of every officer/employee of the bank. As was observed by this Court in Disciplinary Authority-cum-Regional Manager v. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik it is no defence available to say that there was no loss or profit resulted in case, when the officer/employee acted without authority. The very discipline of an organization more particularly a bank is dependent upon each of its officers and officers acting and operating within their allotted sphere. Acting beyond one's authority is by itself a breach of discipline and is a misconduct. The charges against the employee were not casual in nature and were serious. These aspects do not appear to have been kept in view by the High Court."
We do not want to multiply the authorities on this issue. However, we may take notice of one more judgement of Supreme Court where the Court has held that in case of corruption there cannot be any other punishment than dismissal. The law laid down by the Supreme Court of in Municipal Committee, Bahadurgarh Vs. Krishna Behari and Ors. JT 1996 (3) SC 96. The relevant part of the judgement reads as under:
"It is obvious that the respondent has been convicted of a serious crime and it is a clear case attracting under proviso (a) to Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. In a case of such nature - indeed, in cases involving corruption there cannot be any other punishment than dismissal. Any sympathy shown in such cases is totally uncalled for the opposed to public interest. The amount misappropriated may be small or large; it is the act of misappropriate that is relevant. The Director had interfered with the punishment under a total mis-apprehension of the relevant factors to be borne in mind in such a case."
We may also beneficially refer a judgement of learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Tribhuwan Nath Mishra Vs. Committee of Management of Allahabad Dist. Coop. Bank Ltd. And Others 2007 (3) ADJ 220. In the said case, an employee of the Allahabad Cooperative Bank Ltd. had made forged entries in the various accounts in the branch causing embezzlement. He was subjected to the disciplinary proceeding and he was found guilty therein. However, the Committee of Management of the bank after considering the reply of the employee decided to issue notice to the employee that in case he fails to deposit the embezzled amount along with the interest, he would be dismissed from service. After receiving the said notice, the employee deposited the substantial amount along with the interest @ 18% per annum.
However, when he failed to deposit the entire amount, a letter was sent by the Secretary of the Bank to the Secretary of U.P. Cooperative Institutional Service Board seeking its approval for his dismissal. The employee challenged the dismissal order. The Hon'ble Single Judge after considering large number of judgements of the Supreme Court and High Court, held that in case of the charge of misappropriation or embezzlement, the employee should not be reinstated.
We have carefully perused the judgement of the learned Singe Judge (Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ashok Bhushan). We are in respectful agreement with the law laid down by His Lordship.
The principal of law emanates from the above judgements are that in the case of misconduct of a bank officer or employee, including the Cooperative Banks, if the officer /employee is found guilty of any kind of the financial irregularities irrespective of the amount involved, no punishment less than dismissal/termination should be passed. Any plea of leniency or sympathy regarding the quantum of amount or nature of misconduct is totally misplaced. A large number of people including the poorer section of the society keep their savings of the hard earn money in the banks, as they are unsuspecting and trust in the system which has earned trust of people by their high standard of probity, integrity and hard works from the very inception of Banking System. If the trust of the people is eroded in the banking system by the commission or omission of such black sheep, the entire system will lose its credibility and the damage shall be irreversible.
Having regard to the totality of the circumstances and evidence on record, we do not think it a fit case where any interference is called for.
The special appeal is accordingly dismissed.
The parties shall bear their own costs.
(Justice Amitava Lala) (Justice Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel) Order Date :- 21.8.2012 Sandeep Chief Justice's Court Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No. 237359 of 2012 In Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 695 of 2012 Petitioner :- Kanhaiya Gaur (Gond) Respondent :- Union Bank Of India And Others Petitioner Counsel :- Janardan Yadav Respondent Counsel :- Vivek Ratan Hon'ble Amitava Lala,Acting Chief Justice Hon'ble Pradeep Kumar Singh Baghel,J.
Since no objection is raised on the part of the respondents to the delay condonation application, therefore, the delay is condoned.
The delay condonation application is allowed, however, without imposing any cost.
Order Date :- 21.8.2012 Sandeep