THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO WRIT PETITION No. 6543 of 2011 O R D E R: This Writ Petition has been preferred by an officer of the 1st respondent Andhra Bank, a nationalized bank, questioning the validity of the report submitted by the 3rd respondent Enquiry Officer-cum-Chief Manager, Andhra Bank on 28.02.2011 to the Deputy General Manager. In view of the order that I propose to pass now, I can avoid referring to the facts at great length. It appears, the writ petitioner while working as Branch Manager at Duvvada Branch in Visakhapatnam District of the 1st respondent bank, has issued a proforma irrevocable letter of credit in favour of a party for Rs.14 crores. It is the case of the writ petitioner that the party has misused the proforma letter of credit. It is also the case of the writ petitioner that in spite of taking up the matter with the Canara Bank not to act upon the letter of credit issued by him, the Canara Bank appears to have ignored the same and proceeded with the letter of credit. Because of this conduct exhibited by the writ petitioner, he has been subjected to a disciplinary enquiry. There is also prosecution launched against him. Be that as it may, the writ petitioner does not seem to have turned up for participation in the enquiry, which resulted in the Enquiry Officer conducting the enquiry ex parte and submitting his report. Hence, this Writ Petition has been instituted. It is a settled principle of law that an Enquiry Officer is a delegate of the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority himself can conduct an enquiry or delegate such an assignment in favour of any other officer, who is superior in rank to the delinquent employee. The Enquiry Officer’s report is purely a recommendatory one. The disciplinary authority will independently apply his mind by either accepting it or rejecting it. If the disciplinary authority comes to a concussion that there is adequate material on record of the enquiry, which renders the report to be accepted, then only, he will accept the report. Otherwise, he may reject it outright. The disciplinary authority has also got power to remand the matter back for conducting afresh the enquiry. He has the power to entrust the enquiry to be conducted to any other officer than the one who conducted it earlier. These are all various possibilities, which are available to the disciplinary authority. It is therefore, appropriate for the writ petitioner to approach the 2nd respondent Deputy General Manager and Competent Disciplinary Authority and convince him as to how he failed to utilize the opportunity that was provided to him to participate in the enquiry proceedings. If the 2nd respondent is satisfied that there is genuineness behind the claim of the writ petitioner and if he is also convinced about the earnestness of the writ petitioner to participate in such disciplinary proceedings further, he can ask for the enquiry proceedings to be conducted afresh in his presence. It is therefore, essentially for the petitioner to satisfy the 2nd respondent Deputy General Manager that he is not likely to drag on the proceedings over a long period of time and he would be anxious to participate and complete the same in quick time. Therefore, it is always open to the writ petitioner to draft a detailed representation in that regard and submit the same. All I can help the writ petitioner’s cause is only by directing the 2nd respondent to entertain such a representation, if submitted on or before 21.03.2011 and also provide him the opportunity of personal hearing on or before 28.03.2011 and if convinced, to take a decision to provide him an opportunity to participate in the enquiry proceedings. However, I do not consider it necessary to deal with the rest of the contentions canvassed in this Writ Petition and hence, they are all kept open. The Writ Petition is disposed of with the above observations at the admission stage. No costs. ---------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 15th March 2011 Note: Issue CC in two days. ksld