THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Contempt Case No.361 of 2009 (Dated 09-12-2009) Between: Ch.Vinod Kumar S/o Ch.Balakrishna Head Cashier (Region II) Zonal Officer, State Bank of Hyderabad …Petitioner A n d Ms.Renu Chellu Chairman & Managing Director, State Bank of Hyderabad And others …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Contempt Case No.361 of 2009 ORDER: This contempt case has been filed complaining disobedience of the order dated 06.03.2009 passed in W.P.M.P.No.5127 of 2009 in Writ Petition No.3925 of 2009. 2. Notice before admission has been ordered on 19.3.2009. The respondents entered appearance through a counsel. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submit that the third respondent issued proceedings dated 14.11.2008 reinstating the petitioner into service and while reinstating the petitioner into service, the following clauses have been incorporated in the order of reinstatement. (i) The appointment of the petitioner is ad hoc under Court orders and; (ii) The petitioner is not entitled for any consequential benefits. 5. The order passed by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.5127 of 2009 reads as follows:- “ Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the Disciplinary Authority appointed the Enquiry Officer and the Enquiry Officer submitted his report finding the petitioner not guilty of three charges and guilty partly in respect of one charge i.e., with regard to unauthorized absence. He further submitted that Disciplinary Authority without taking into consideration of the enquiry report, proceeded to issue fresh charge sheet and appointed another Enquiry Officer. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that appointing second Enquiry Officer is impermissible under law and in support of his submission, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank and others v. Kunj Behari Misra [(1998)7 Supreme Court Cases 84], wherein it has been held as under: “ The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer”. The Enquiry Officer submitted report on 17-05-2007. The Disciplinary Authority without assigning any reasons for deferring with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, proceeded to order for de nova enquiry on 30.11.2007. In that view of the matter, there shall be interim suspension of the order passed by the 3rd respondent vide DGM (H) DP/949 dated 14.11.2008 and the order passed by the 2nd respondent vide DGM(H)/DP/2264 dated 23.01.2009.” 6. The order passed in W.P.M.P.No.5127 of 2009 does not contemplate stipulation of any conditions. Therefore, the third respondent has to issue revised proceedings deleting the two conditions stipulated in the order of reinstatement. 7. It is represented by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that it has been proposed to delete the two conditions stipulated in the order of reinstatement and the file is with the competent authority for approval. 8. Such is the situation; this contempt case is disposed of directing the respondents to issue revised proceedings deleting the above referred two conditions. ____________________________ B.SESHASAYANA REDDY, J Dt.09-12-2009 RAR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY Contempt Case No.361 of 2009 DATED 09-12-2009