CWP No.12403 of 2009.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.12403 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 12.01.2011 **** Arun Kant Batta . . . . Petitioner VS. Punjab State Cooperative Bank Ltd. & Ors. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. Parveen K Moudgil, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Kanwaljit Singh Sr.Advocate with Mr. Ankur Goel, Advocate for the respondents ***** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) (1). This order shall dispose of CWP Nos.12403 of 2009; 6191 of 2010 as issues involved are inter-related. (2). The petitioner seeks quashing of the orders dated 10.08.2007, 16.02.2009 and 29.07.2009 (Annexures P3, P8 & P10, respectively). (3). Shorn of the details, the petitioner joined the respondent- Bank as Manager (EDP) in the year 1990 and thereafter was promoted as DGM (Systems) in the year 1998. Pursuant to an enquiry conducted into an alleged scam in the purchase of computers for the Punjab State CWP No.12403 of 2009.doc - 2 – Cooperative Bank and for its Branches, the petitioner, who was the member-convenor of the Purchase Committee, was placed under suspension vide order dated 10.08.2007 (Annexure P3) followed by a charge- sheet dated 23.08.2007 (Annexure P4) served upon him. Mr. JS Bhatia, Director C-DAC was appointed as the Inquiry Officer, who vide his enquiry report dated 04.09.2008 (Annexure P7) held that the “the petitioner is not guilty of any of the charges framed against him”. Not being satisfied with the said enquiry report, the Managing Director of the respondent-Bank remitted the said enquiry to Mr. JS Bhatia for ‘thorough probe into the charges’. The enquiry Officer showed his reluctance to conduct the enquiry due to his ill health. As such Mr. Udham Singh, Addl. Managing Director was appointed as the Enquiry Officer who, according to the petitioner, is a non-technical person and himself being involved in the purchase scam, could not be entrusted the enquiry as it amounted to make him judge in his own cause. Aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court. (4). During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the parties do not dispute the legal position that in terms of Rule 9(1) of the Punishment and Appeals Rule 1970, the Punishing Authority, for the reasons to be recorded in CWP No.12403 of 2009.doc - 3 – writing, could remit the case to the same enquiring authority to whom the earlier enquiry was entrusted, for further enquiry into the left out issues, if any. (5). In this view of the matter and since Mr. JS Bhatia – the Enquiry Officer is still holding the office of Director C- DAC, the Managing Director of the respondent-Bank is directed to remit the matter back to Mr. Bhatia along with his queries of left out issues, if any, who being the earlier enquiring authority, is directed to re-examine those queries and submit a supplementary report in accordance with law and after observing the principles of natural justice within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (6). Suffice it to observe that keeping in view the contents of the original enquiry report already submitted by Mr. Bhatia and the supplementary enquiry report to be submitted by him in terms of the directions issued hereinabove, the Disciplinary Authority shall be free to proceed further in the matter in accordance with law/Rules. (7). The parties shall be at liberty to raise rest of their contentions, if so required, at an appropriate stage as the same have been kept open. (8). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. CWP No.12403 of 2009.doc - 4 – 12.01.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge