CWP No.6930 of 1987 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.6930 of 1987 Date of Decision. 22.11.2011 K.S. Puri (through LRs) …………Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ……Respondents Present: Mr. V.K. Kapur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Karminder Singh, Advocate for respondent No.1. None for respondent Nos.2 to 6. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The petitioner challenges the result of an enquiry that led to an order of dismissal. The petitioner had been serving as an Officer in Nationalized Bank and during his service, he was served with a charge-sheet on the grounds namely: (i) that he had received illegal gratification from the borrowers for sanctioning of advances; (ii) he took the premium in cash from the borrowers instead of debiting the same to the respective loan accounts. The enquiry was concluded after the evidence were brought through witnesses and documents CWP No.6930 of 1987 -2- produced but in the absence of the party for the crucial date on 13.05.1986 when he did not turn up. The Enquiry Officer obtained oral evidence in support of documents on two consecutive dates on 13.05.1986 and 14.05.1986 and proceeded to find that there were sufficient materials to establish the charges 1 and 3 as having been established. The charge relating to his lack of supervision that the amounts had not been spent for the purpose for which they had been lent was alone found to be not established. The other two charges referred to above had been found as proved. On the basis of Enquiry Officer’s report, on 25.08.1986 an order had been passed by the Regional Manager accepting the report and removing the petitioner from service. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously contends that the enquiry had not been carried out by following the requisite procedure and adequate opportunity was not given to participate in the enquiry before the Enquiry Officer. Learned counsel would contend that on 13.05.1986, he had produced a person by name C.S. Rattan to assist him for cross-examination of witnesses, who on giving his letter of consent to assist him had sought for 10 days but the same was not given and the Enquiry Officer proceeded to deal with the documents and found him guilty. Learned counsel would also contend that there was no show cause notice given before the decision was taken terminating him from service. This, according to him, constituted a serious prejudice and he had no occasion to say that the Enquiry Officer’s report itself was not worthy to act on to pass a final order of removal from service with immediate effect. CWP No.6930 of 1987 -3- 3. As far as the contention regarding the fact that there had been no proper enquiry and that the petitioner did not have adequate opportunity to make appropriate representation and secure the assistance of a person well versed in enquiries, the contention raised by the petitioner does not go unchallenged. On the other hand, documents filed by the petitioners themselves would show that on the same day, there had been exchange of communications one from the petitioner to the Enquiry Officer on 23.05.1986 and from the Enquiry Officer to the petitioner explaining as to how the petitioner had deliberately absented himself from 23.05.1986 and therefore, the proceedings had to go in his absence. In his complaint of 23.05.1986, the Enquiry Officer has stated that the petitioner met the Enquiry Officer on 12.05.1986 and requested him to allow Sh. C.S. Rattan as the Assisting Officer, who was then the Manager in the Branch Office at Patti and he had also requested him to give 10 days time to study the case since Sh. Rattan was new at Patti and he might require some time to study the paper. The Enquiry Officer was alleged to have asked the petitioner to give it in writing and that he would wait till 14.05.1986 but he was not available to make possible for the petitioner to deliver the letter of request. The enquiry officer, on the other hand, had gone away from the place and that, according to the petitioner, excited a suspicion of the fairness of the Enquiry Officer and a letter was addressed to the Regional Office with a copy marked to the enquiry officer himself, requesting that the Enquiry Officer must provide him one opportunity to state his defence and examine witnesses. CWP No.6930 of 1987 -4- 3. The letter written on the same day by the Enquiry Officer reveals a different story. It says that the after the proceedings started sometime in July, 1985 with the production of all documents, the case had been adjourned from time to time till when a notice was issued on 07.05.1986 to the petitioner warning him of the fact that the case would be taken up on 13.05.1986 and that if he did not make any arrangement, the case would be decided in his absence. It also records the fact that the petitioner had represented to him on 12.05.1986 that C.S. Rattan would be assisting him and that he had requested to the Enquiry Officer to invite Sh. Rattan at his office at Patti. The Enquiry Officer has stated in that letter that since the time, date and venue of the place were very well known and made clear, it was the petitioner’s duty to bring Sh. Rattan to get on with the enquiry. He did not turn at the enquiry and therefore, the proceedings were undertaken ex parte. 4. At the proceedings in writ petition, I cannot entertain serious issue of dispute of fact as to what really transpired on 12.05.1986 that resulted in the proceedings being taken up ex parte. I can only have the benefit of the order itself, which explains the absence of the petitioner and the circumstances under which the Enquiry Officer was compelled to proceed with the enquiry and concluded his report. 5. Since the petitioner has complained of very serious lapse of proper procedure, I was prepared to examine the report of the Enquiry Officer to see whether the report was slipshod or has drawn inferences, which could not have been drawn under the normal circumstances on the basis of documents that had been filed before CWP No.6930 of 1987 -5- him. The Enquiry Officer has considered fairly and elaborately every document that had been produced before him, which was supported by evidence of witnesses and inferences of how the delinquent officer had been complained of as guilty of receiving gratifications before issuing notice. There was voluminous documentary oral evidence as regards the same and in fact one Ajaib Singh gave evidence that he gave Rs.400/- to Sh.Puri for getting his loan sanctioned. Another person Maghar Singh MW-6 had also stated that for a loan of Rs.4400/-, which was sanctioned to him, he actually paid Rs.300/- to Sh. Puri. In fact, this evidence was even put to test in the cross- examination where the suggestion was that he was making the false statement at the instance of somebody but the witnesses stood ground to say that he had actually made the payment and he was not talking at the behest of anyone else. He was also asked as to how witness himself committed an illegal act by giving a bribe to which the witnesses responded that he was helpless, for without making such payment, the loan itself would not have been sanctioned. I have reproduced this evidence as merely illustrative of how there had been reasonably fairness in approach of not merely recording the evidence by their appearance but he appropriately tried to put them on cross-examination. There were other witnesses who spoke about the illegal gratification, which the delinquent demanded and secured. I find the enquiry even in the absence of the petitioner had been reasonably fair and if it turned out that the petitioner himself was absent at the enquiry, it was his own choice and I will not hold the conduct of the Enquiry Officer as rash and improper. CWP No.6930 of 1987 -6- 6. The further challenge to the order that came to be passed without affording him an opportunity to explain, the issue has been dealt with by two important pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v Ramzan Khan (1991) 1 SCC 588 and ECIL v B.Karunakar (1993) 4 SCC 727. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has made a specific exception to cases that had been dealt with before the decision in Ramjan Khan and has explained that the non-service of the Enquiry Officer’s report shall not vitiate the decision of the disciplinary authority. Even for cases post Ramzan Khan, show cause notice on enquiry report cannot at all times be insisted and it has to be shown that non-service of that report caused serious prejudice or it was possible to challenge the Enquiry Officer’s report in some manner which was tenable. The Enquiry Officer’s report is not challenged in any other way except contending that the petitioner did not have appropriate opportunity to conduct the case before the Enquiry Officer. With the substantial findings that he has entered on the evidence, which was available, I would find no ground to interfere with the ultimate decision that is taken. 7. Even as regards the issue of punishment, Courts have very limited role to play unless punishment itself shocks the judicial conscience or capricious, there is no scope for interference. The punishment of dismissal for an act of bribery cannot be seen as inappropriate. The order is affirmed and the writ petition is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE CWP No.6930 of 1987 -7- November 22, 2011 Pankaj*