IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6486 of 2006 KAMLA KANT VERMA Versus THE STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner: M/s. P.K.Verma, s.r.Sharan & M. Tiwary, Advocates For the Respondents:M/s.K.K.Sinha & S.K.Singh, Advocates --------- 3 21.8.2008 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner was proceeded against in a departmental enquiry for certain charges of omission and commission for his tenure as a Branch Manager at Gaya Bazar Branch of State Bank of India. Six sets of charges were brought up against the petitioner as would be evident from the chargesheet contained in annexure-1. An enquiry was held. In the enquiry report the enquiry officer did not find any of the charges proved except charge no.4. The disciplinary authority disagreed with the findings of the enquiry officer as would be evident from perusal of annexure-3 dated 11.11.1999. On the basis of the disagreement an order of punishment came to be passed which is contained in annexure-5. The appeal of the petitioner filed against the order has also been dismissed by virtue of the order dated 6.9.2001 as contained in annexure-7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has a very pointed submission to make on the order of punishment. He does not dispute the fact that the disciplinary authority does have power to disagree with the findings rendered - 2 - by enquiry officer but while issuing notice of disagreement he must indicate the materials which were cogent enough for him to come to a conclusion that the enquiry officer had committed a patent mistake in conclusion reached by him. According to the petitioner a bare perusal of annexure-3 would show that it is only a reproduction of the charges and does not furnish or include any material as to how the disciplinary authority was compelled to hold otherwise. He even points out from the record that the disciplinary authority disagreed with the findings of the enquiry officer with regard to allegation nos. 2, 3 only 5 and with no opinion on allegation no.6. But while coming to the concluding part of the order he holds the petitioner guilty to all the charges including allegation no.6. Based on this the disciplinary authority has imposed punishment order. His other contention is that the disciplinary authority should have considered his explanation on the so called points of disagreement. But a perusal of the order of punishment does not reflect that any of the aspect has been considered because the petitioner had filed a very detailed reply on the notice as would be evident from annexure-4. This is the basic infirmity according to petitioner which has caused him prejudice. If this is foundational fact then the opinion of the disciplinary authority based on which the punishment order has been passed is not an opinion in the eye of law. On behalf of the respondents in the counter affidavit they have tried to make out the gravity of the charges - 3 - which were brought against the petitioner and the circumstances under which the departmental enquiry was started against him. They justified the punishment commensurate with the so called allegations and charges. The Court does not disagree on this issue that there was cause and material which compelled the hands of the respondents to initiate a departmental enquiry against the petitioner but while doing so if they commit a folly in following the procedure as has been done in this case then the benefit must accrue to the petitioner. The Court has perused the order dated 31.12.99. The fact pointed out by the petitioner is borne out in this regard. Annexure-3 is not only repetition of charges but even charge no.6 which is not an issue before the disciplinary authority has been included in the final order of punishment. The Court also finds that the so called notice or show cause issued to the petitioner has been rendered meaningless since the show cause of the petitioner has not been noticed by the disciplinary authority. When it is so then the purpose of issuing a notice to the petitioner upon disagreement is lost. In totality therefore the Court comes to an opinion that the respondents have committed error of law by adopting a mechanism in the present matter not inconsonance with settled positions in such matter. In view of the above the punishment order contained in annexure-5 as well as appellate order contained in annexure-7 are hereby quashed. The matter could have been - 4 - remanded back to the respondents to issue a fresh notice of disagreement, consider the show cause thereafter to pass an appropriate order but since the petitioner has already superannuated from service the Court desists from remanding the matter. This writ application stands allowed. RPS (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)