CWP No.4201 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP NO.4201 OF 2007 DATE OF DECISION: 23-01-2008 T.P.Singh .....PETITIONER VERSUS State Bank of India and others .....RESPONDENTS CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL PRESENT: Mr.A.K.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Vikas Chatrath, Advocate for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J. The petitioner is aggrieved against the order Annexure P7 dated 26-02-2007 whereby the Enquiry Officer has fixed the case for further proceedings consequent to the decision of the Disciplinary Authority to re-open the enquiry against the petitioner. The petitioner while working as Senior Assistant with Baghapurana Branch of the Bank was served with a charge-sheet dated 06-03-2006. Mr.S.P.Gupta was appointed as Enquiry Officer on 20-06-2006. The petitioner did not participate in the enquiry proceedings and in fact sought to participate in the enquiry proceedings vide communication on 04-10-2006 Annexure P4 and dated 10-01-2007 Annexure R2/1. However, the Enquiry Officer has rejected such request for participation in enquiry proceedings. On 07-02-2007 vide Annexure R2/6, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report proving the charges against the CWP No.4201 of 2007 2 petitioner. The said report reads as under: “The above named employee was charge sheeted by the Bank on 06-03-2006. I was entrusted to conduct the enquiry by the Bank, vide letter No.DPC/06/56 dated 23-05-2006. Enquiry Brief Presenting Officer:- Sh.Phool Chand, Field Officer at our Bagha Purana Branch, was appointed as presenting officer by the Bank. P.O. has submitted in his brief that sufficient time has been given to Sh.T.P. Singh, EPA, to put forth his defence against the charges levied against him. On most of the dates, the EPA failed to attend the proceedings and did not submit any reply in his defence. So in the light of the above, he concluded the enquiry. Defence Representative:- Sh. O.P.Indal, D.R. in his brief has denied the charges having signed the said withdrawals forms by Sh. T.P.Singh, EPA and received any payment there against. In the light of the above, I have decided the case ex-parte, and the charges stands proved.” A perusal of the record produced by the respondents in Court shows that on 12-02-2007 when the matter was put up before the Disciplinary Authority, the following note was recorded: “ I order for the reopening of enquiry proceedings as Enquiry Officer has not given basis of his proving the charge.” On the basis of the said order, the Enquiry Officer has CWP No.4201 of 2007 3 addressed a communication dated 26-02-2007 to the petitioner so as to restart the enquiry proceedings. On the request of the petitioner dated 07-03-2007, the copy of the enquiry report was supplied to the petitioner on 20-03-2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that after the completion of the enquiry, there is no provision for holding de-novo enquiry and, therefore, the communication Annexure P7 is without jurisdiction. Reliance is placed upon a Division Bench judgment of Calcutta High Court in The Calcutta Municipal Corporation and others Vs. Dr.S.Wajid Ali and another, 1992(5) SLR561. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has controverted the stand of the petitioner and relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court Amrit Vanaspati Co. Ltd. Vs. Khem Chand and another, (2006) 6 SCC 324 to contend that it is open to the Management to order further enquiry in appropriate cases. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the enquiry proceedings, which may warrant any interference by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. The Enquiry Officer has given report holding the charges proved as the petitioner has not participated in such enquiry. It was the petitioner who wanted to participate in the enquiry. Such communications are Annexure P4 dated 4-10-2006 and Annexure R2/1 dated 10-01-2007. May be the Enquiry Officer has not considered appropriate to grant opportunity to the petitioner to participate in the enquiry proceedings in CWP No.4201 of 2007 4 pursuance of such communications made by the petitioner but it was the Disciplinary Authority, who is the final decision making Authority in respect of charges levelled against the petitioner, that report of Enquiry Officer is not sustainable. The Disciplinary Authority has found that the Enquiry Officer has given report without proving the charges against the petitioner. It was in these circumstances, it was considered appropriate by him to direct the Presenting Officer to produce evidence and also to grant opportunity to the petitioner to lead his evidence in defence. Such procedure cannot be said to be violative to any principles of natural justice or that against any principle of law. The judgment referred to by the petitioner proceeds on the basis that there has to be a specific Rule or Regulation permitting a de-novo enquiry by the Disciplinary Authority. However, with due respect we have our reservations to accept the said principle laid down in the aforesaid judgment. The final Authority to take action against delinquent employee is the Disciplinary Authority. If that Disciplinary Authority finds that the enquiry proceedings have been conducted not in accordance with the procedure or that some aspect has not been investigated in proper manner, the Disciplinary Authority could order further enquiry. The said power to direct further enquiry is inherent with the Disciplinary Authority. In fact, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India Vs. P.Thayagarajan (1999) 1 SCC 733, held to the following effect: “In the present case, the basis upon which the disciplinary authority set aside the enquiry is that the procedure adopted by the enquiry officer was contrary to the relevant rules and affects the CWP No.4201 of 2007 5 rights of the parties and not that the report does not appeal to him. When important evidence, either to be relied upon by the Department or by the delinquent official, is shut out, this would not result in any advancement of any justice but on the other hand, result in a miscarriage thereof. Therefore, we are of the view that Rule 27 (c) enables the disciplinary authority to record his findings on the report and to pass an appropriate order including ordering a de novo enquiry in a case of the present nature. The reasoning adopted by the Division Bench of the High Court was plainly incorrect. Whatever may be the powers of the appellate authority, the disciplinary authority will have to be satisfied with the procedure adopted by the enquiry officer before passing an order. It does not stand to logic that in a given case, the appellate authority could order a fresh enquiry and not the disciplinary authority at whose instance the enquiry began and which is not satisfied with the enquiry held for some vital defects in the procedure adopted. Therefore the order made by the High Court cannot be sustained.” In the present case, the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer are against the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority has proceeded to order further enquiry in view of the manner in which enquiry was conducted. Such action is in fact to advance the cause of justice and provide opportunity to the petitioner, which he earlier sought by the aforesaid communications. CWP No.4201 of 2007 6 Therefore, we do not find any ground to interfere in the writ petition challenging the order Annexure P7. Dismissed with no order as to costs. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE ( MOHINDER PAL ) January 23, 2008 JUDGE jt