CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1226 OF 2011 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: JANUARY 21, 2011 Ramesh Kaura .....Petitioner VERSUS Punjab Natioinal Bank, New Delhi and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Praveen Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner, who is a Bank employee and is being proceeded against for disciplinary action, has prayed for intervention with the enquiry while it is in progress on the ground that his rights to defend himself properly, is being prejudiced. A charge sheet dated 21.4.2010 is issued to the petitioner, containing various allegations in regard to his conduct for not carrying out pre-sanctioned appraisal of loan before recommending credit facilities in favour of various parties. The petitioner is also accused of not keeping effective control over the loan documents and had debited various demand loan accounts CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1226 OF 2011 :{ 2 }: unauthorizedly. He is also accused of misusing his official position for getting sanction of housing loan in the names of his wife and son and for having engaged himself in business in violation of the Bank guidelines. Enquiry Officer has been appointed, who had asked the petitioner to verify the documents. The petitioner instead prayed for time till his defence assistance is available. The proceedings of the enquiry annexed with the petition (Annexure P-4) would show that the petitioner admitted receipt of one set of management's documents and requested for time for verification. The enquiry proceedings were accordingly adjourned to 19.9.2010 i.e. for 9 days. In fact, these proceedings were held on 10.9.2010, having been adjourned on 28.8.2010, on which date the petitioner had sought time to arrange defence assistance. The petitioner then approached the Disciplinary Authority on 14.9.2010 for providing him the services of defence assistance. He was informed through letter dated 20.9.2010 that he may take the assistance of any other employee, who is not having two disciplinary cases pending on him. The petitioner had also made a grievance that the documents supplied to him contained some additional documents, which were not part and parcel of the list of documents supplied alongwith the charge sheet. The Enquiry Officer, however, adjourned the proceedings for examining the witnesses without properly attending to the request of the petitioner. As per the petitioner, the Presenting Officer could not submit additional list of documents, for which he made a representation and this would lead to inherent defect or lacuna in the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1226 OF 2011 :{ 3 }: proceedings of enquiry. The petitioner would urge that the Enquiry Officer allowed the examination of management witnesses even without supplying the list of defence documents, thus, causing prejudice to the petitioner. The petitioner has prayed for permission to inspect the documents or the record/files concerning different loans and submitted a detailed representation about the illegal manner in which the enquiry proceedings were being conducted. The representations of the petitioner have been rejected by the Disciplinary Authority and accordingly he has filed the present petition to impugn the said order. The procedure for imposing major penalty is contained in Regulation 6 of Punjab National Bank Officers Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulation, 1977 (hereinafter called, “the Regulation”). Having given out as to how the Disciplinary Authority will proceed to direct enquiry, the procedure to be adopted by the Enquiry Officer is fully regulated under Regulation 6 of the Regulation. As per this procedure, the Enquiry Authority is to issue notice in writing specifying the date on which the officer/employee shall appear in person before him. The officer employee then would appear before the Enquiry Authority on the date specified in the notice. The enquiry authority is then to ask the employee whether he pleads guilty or has any defence to make. If the employee pleads guilty to any of the article of charges, the enquiry authority is to record the same and then sign the record and obtain the signatures of the officer employee. Upon this, the Enquiry Authority shall return a finding of guilty in respect of those article of charges, to which the officer CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1226 OF 2011 :{ 4 }: employee has pleaded guilty. On the other hand, if the officer employee does not plead guilty, then the enquiry authority is to adjourn the case but not more than exceeding 30 days. While adjourning this case, the enquiry authority shall record that the officer employee may for the purpose of preparing his defence do as under:- '(i) complete inspection of the documents as in the list furnished to him immediately and in any case not exceeding 5 days from the date of such order if he had not done so earlier as provided for in the proviso to sub- regulation (3); (ii)submit a list of documents and witnesses, that he wants for the inquiry; (iii)give notice within ten days of the order or within such further time not exceeding ten days as the Inquiring Authority may allow for the discovery or production of the documents referred to in item (ii).” While demanding documents, as provided above, the officer employee is required to show relevancy of the documents and the examination of the witnesses asked for by him. On receipt of such notice, the enquiry authority is to forward the same to the authority in whose custody or possession the documents are kept with the requisition for production of the documents on such date as may be specified. The authority having custody or possession of the documents shall arrange to produce the same before enquiry authority on the date and place so specified. The authority concerned CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1226 OF 2011 :{ 5 }: may claim privilege for production of any document. On the date fixed for enquiry, oral and documentary evidence, by which the article of charges are proposed to be proved, shall be produced by or on behalf of the authority. The witnesses produced by the Presenting Officer are to be examined by him and may be cross-examined on behalf of the officer employee. Regulation 6 (14) makes a clear and categoric provision, leaving discretion with the enquiry authority to allow the Presenting Officer to produce evidence not included in the charge sheet or may itself call for new evidence or recall or reexamine any witness before the close of case in support of the charges. In such case, the officer employee is to be given opportunity to inspect the documentary evidence before it is taken on record or to cross-examine a witness, who has been so summoned. The enquiry authority may also allow the officer employee to produce new evidence, if it is of the opinion that the production of such evidence is necessary. This Regulation, thus, is a complete code providing for procedure of holding enquiry. The grievance of the petitioner that the documents in addition to those which were supplied to him alongwith the charge sheet, are being considered and that this is not permissible, does not appear to be well founded. Regulation 6, on which the petitioner has placed reliance, rather gives a clear discretion in this regard to the Enquiry Authority and such discretion can be exercised at any stage before the close of the case in support of the charges. The plea of the petitioner of prejudice on this count and the same being in violation of the procedure, thus, can not be CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1226 OF 2011 :{ 6 }: accepted. The second plea of the petitioner that enquiry authority is proceeding with examination of witnesses without supply of defence documents again is not well founded. The detailed procedure required to be followed as per Regulation 6 is enumerated above. The petitioner had a right to submit a list of documents and witnesses, whom he wanted to examine as given in Regulation 6 (10) reproduced above. The power of the enquiry authority to give notice for allowing discovery and production of these documents is also provided for. The procedure, as prescribed, does not envisage that examination of witnesses can not be continued till the defence witnesses or documents are requisitioned and are made available. In fact, while dealing with the representation of the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority had clearly noticed that the Enquiry Officer has proceeded with the enquiry as per the prescribed rules. The Disciplinary Authority has rightly relied upon Regulation 6(14) of the Regulation to observe that EO can file additional documents till closure of the management case. So far as the aspect of inspection of documents is concerned, it is noticed that Enquiry Officer had advised the petitioner to verify the documents from the original on 28.8.2010, 10.9.2010, 20.9.2010 and lastly on 24.9.2010. As observed by the Disciplinary Authority, the petitioner had confirmed compliance of having inspected the listed documents. The petitioner was also allowed inspection of loan files before he submitted his written statement of defence. The petitioner had taken five days for referring CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1226 OF 2011 :{ 7 }: the records before submitting his defence statement. In his defence statement, the petitioner has not made any grievance that he was not provided any relevant record. From the above, it is clear that this petition has just been filed to prolong the proceedings and there has not been any violation, which would call for any interference at this stage. The enquiry proceedings are still in progress and certainly no case for interference with the enquiry proceedings at this stage is made out as there has been no violation of any procedure. The writ petition is totally misconceived and misplaced and the same is accordingly dismissed. January 21, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE