¥ / ”G IN ‘lT'w HIaFr GdUR'J'.‘ OF rjADTHA 1r: DB3? AT JAB LA’ “.4" w/ 199 1 c3 g < NWQ Madanlal Tandon son of $111” 3.11 Taxman, agedt abom; 36 yaars Occumtloq a Servwe, r9ai'ient of vulaagacqhharoy“ T.1h33.1 8c Dlsmnlc~+wua139w. f Mim. Eetnian Nokg Ci E’Ei‘ IT 10mm #Versw a z ’% Emawym' aipm‘ Kshe+rwa (mwq Bank, through " habmwu, Head fflae Dayalba‘nd Bilaspur. RESEUNDENT S m iagw-(E g gkfkékmrg R a: Borax“ of B13: "Acmw, Bila$puc ixaipur Kshetrlya Grcmln Bank, t‘wougx uhalrman, D yalbwqi Bxlaspuc -a...wn mm . mum 1mm Aammm 2230? LEE ON mm‘umunr 03 Immumw“ V J/\ K J w 2 \\_\\AM 3% 30.3" HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION N0. 639 of 1993 PETITIONER Madanlal Tandon. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank & another. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Smt. Smita Ghai, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Pramod Verma, Senior Advocate with Shri Sumit Verma, Advocate for the respondent N0. 1. ORDER ORAL (Passed on 30‘ day of March, 2010) Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 01.10.1991 (Annexure P/26) whereby the petitioner was removed from service and the order dated 26.11.1992 (Annexure P/28) and 10.12.1992 (Annexure P/29) wherein the appellate authority, on the basis of resolution passed by the Board of Directors, has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner against the order of removal dated 01.10.1991 (Anexure P/26). 2. The facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner was appointed as Field Supervisor with the respondent-Bank by direct recruitment in the year 1981. A charge sheet dated 6.2.1984 (Annexure P/2) was issued to the petitioner for having committed misconduct. A reply to the said show-cause-notice was submitted by the petitioner on 18.02.1984 (Annexure P/3). The petitioner received a communication dated 25.04.1984 (Annexure P/4) whereby the petitioner was informed that a departmental enquiry was to be initiated against him. After enquiry, an order dated 5.7.1984 (Annexure P/8) was passed .by the Disciplinary Authority whereby the petitioner was punished with stoppage of two annual increments. The said order is not under 2 challenge in this petition. Subsequently, a second charge sheet was issued on 14.11.1987 (Annexure P/16) on the alleged grounds of several financial irregularities in distribution of loans for various agricultural purposes.,Enquiry Officer was appointed and after conducting enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding the petitioner guilty of the charges. Out of 17 charges, three charges were not found proved. Agreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, the impugned punishment order of removal from service was passed on 01.10.1991 (Annexure P/26). The petitioner preferred a statutory appeal against the said removal order which was also rejected by the Board of Directors vide resolution dated 26.11.1992 (Annexure P/2) and order was communicated to the petitioner vide letter 10. 12.1992 (Annexure P/29). 3. Smt. Smita Ghai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the first charge sheet dated 06.02.1984 (Annexure P/2) and the second charge sheet dated 14.1 1.1987 (Annexure P/16) are identical and as such, the second charge sheet was illegal and that could not have been issued as the charge sheet issued earlier resulted into imposition of stoppage of two increments. Smt. Ghai further submits that the second charge sheet does not enclose any list of documents on which» reliance was made to initiate enquiry aher issuing charge sheet. Further, it also does not contain any list of witnesses on the basis of which, the said charge sheet was issued. Thus, the enquiry is vitiated. Smt. Ghai further contends that despite repeated representations made to the officers concerned for supply of relevant documents, the petitioner was denied access to the relevant documents as is evident from letter dated 31.12.1987 (Annexure P/18). The disciplinary authority has taken a stand that the documents in respect of the charge sheet for the purposes / of examining the charge sheet is improper and irregular and the / / / 3 petitioner could have inspected all other documents which were available with the bank. Smt. Ghai further submits that no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to have inspection of the relevant documents and as such, the petitioner was not in a position to reply to the show cause notice effectively and properly in the enquiry proceedings. Only inspection was allowed which was not sufficient for preparation of defence and put forward his case properly before Enquiry Officer. On the other hand, Shri Sumit Verma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank submits that there is no document on record to show that list of documents was supplied to the petitioner alongwith the charge sheet. However, during the enquiry, all the documents were made available to the petitioner for inspection and sufficient time was granted to the petitioner t0 prepare his defence. The petitioner himself abandoned enquiry on 02.09.1989 (pg. 79 of the return) thus, there was no option but to proceed with the enquiry in absence of the petitioner. On perusal of the charge sheet, contention of-the petitioner that the first charge sheet and the second charge sheet are identical, deserves to be rejected as the contents of the first charge sheet are entirely different. Subsequent charge sheet dated 14.1 1.1987 contains detailed and specific charges. The first charge sheet dated 6.2.1984 (Annexure P/2) reads as under: “1. W‘ 30.10.83 aft W 12.30 ad 615 dis Eta wegudmliaemamwméawah eWEéiE‘I 2. WWW?%W$§WWW mmeaidiszewzfimmm amem§$$%ra$%w%1 3. mmmwmanwéizgrmmw mmmmaaugqswm W®W%$W$W$Wa€i Mamel 4. Mmawwmmeww manual \ 4 5. W 29.10.83 Em $31 W We! W 30.10.83 @mmwmWE‘TWaé‘rwm Erl§11é| 6. WW$WWW¢®$§E§0® WW?W@&W€H” ‘In Ihe flrst charge sheet, the petitioner was alleged to have committed irregularities in dealing of the business transactions. However, that too was not specific and the remaining charges were with regard to opening of the bank, granting unauthorized leave, Violation of the rules. Thus, the second chargesheet could have been issued as the charge sheet gives detailed grounds, specific names of the customers who were given loans for agricultural purposes without following the due process of law. It is true that alongwith the charge sheet and imputation of charges, there was no list of documents and as such, the petitioner was not afforded an opportunity to put forward his case in response to the show cause notice alogwith the charge sheet. On perusal of the enquiry proceedings dated 21.03.1988 (Annexure R/Z) it appears that the list of documents was supplied to the delinquent employee by the Bank’s representative and thereafter, the matter was taken up on 21.04. 1988 to enable the delinquent employee to prepare his defence and put forward his case. Further, on perusal of the proceedings dated 01.08.1989, wherein according to the respondent-Bank, the delinquent employee has abandoned the proceeding, does not appear so as the delinquent employee has argued on the earlier charge sheet but no argument has been advanced in respect of the second charge sheet and thereafter, from 02.08.1989, it appears that the delinquent employee remained absent. In the enquiry report, it is stated that the delinquent employee was supplied a list of documents during the course of the enquiry and as such, he was afforded full opportunity to put forward his case. According to the petitioner that all the three loans were advanced / t 1 W1 5 after due sanction from the superior authorities, the enquiry officer has relied on several documents like loan ledger, delivery order, instructions with regard to distribution of the loans and without considering the objection of the delinquent employee, and came to the conclusion that the charges were proved. Thus, the documents which were requested by the delinquent employee for inspection, the same was denied. Relianc has been made by the Enquiry Officer in coming to the conclusion that the charge No. 1 was found proved on those documents which were not supplied to the delinquent employee. Likewise, other charges viz. charge No. 2 has also been found proved relying on several documents i.e. document N0. P/21, P/25, P/23, P/19 and P/30. Charge No. 3 was also found proved. Charge No. 4 was also found proved wherein‘it was stated that the delinquent employee has not'submitted his defence. Charge No. 5 was also proved on the basis of several applications viz. P/30, P/31 and P/32, without considering the submissions of the delinquent employee. Several documents produced by the Bank’s representative were considered but no defence was submitted by the delinquent employee, as he has neither denied the contents of the documents nor has submitted any explanation for the same. Charge No. 6 was found proved and charge No. 7 was found partly proved. Charge No. l2, 14 and 17 were found not proved. It appears that the Enquiry Officer has proceeded and concluded the enquiry without considering the case of the petitioner, wherein he has presented his defence. It further appears that the petitioner had no opportunity to examine or inspect the documents relied on by the Enquiry Officer before holding that all the charges, except-charge N0. 12, 14 and 7 were found to be a proved. e It is crystal celar that no documents were supplied alongwith the charge sheet on the basis of which charges were framed. The petitioner had no opportunity to meet the charges for want of material document. Some documents were given during departmental proceeding but the relevant documents on the basis of which finding was recorded were not made available to the petitioner. Thus, the enquiry is Vitiated. The Supreme Court, in Kashz'nath Dikshz'ta v. Union oflndz'a & Others], the Supreme Court observed as under: “10... When a government servant is facing a disciplinary proceeding, he is entitled to be ayforded a reasonable opportunity to meet the charges against him in an edective manner. And no one facing a departmental enquiry can ejj’ectively meet thecharges unless the copies of the relevant statements and documents to be used against him are made available to him. In the absence of such copies, how can the concerned employee prepare his defence, cross-examine the witnesses, and point out the inconsistencies with a view to show that the allegations are incredible? ” 10. In Chandramani Tewari v. Union oflndia (Through General Manager, Eastern Railwaysf, the Supreme Court observed as under: “4....Article 311 of the Constitution requires that i L a reasonable opportunity ofdefence must be ajforded to a government servant before he is awarded major punishment of dismissal. It further contemplates that disciplinary enquiry must be held in accordance with the rules, in a just. and fair manner. The procedure at the enquiry must be consistent with the principles ofnatural justice. Principles of natural justice require that the copy of the document if any relied upon against the party charged should be given to him and he should be afforded opportunity to cross examine the witnesses and to produce his own witnesses in his defence. Iffindings are recorded against the government servant placing reliance on a document which may not have been disclosed to him or the copy whereofmay not have been supplied to him during the enquiry when demanded, that would contravene principles cfnaturaljustice rendering the enquiry, and the consequential order ofpunishment illegal and void. These principles are well settled by a catena ofdecisions ofthis Court. " In Govt. of A.P. & Others v. AVenkata Raidu3, the Supreme Court observed as under: “9’..It is a settledprinczp’le ofnaturaljustice that ifcmy material is sought to be used in an enquiry, then copies of that material should be supplied to the party against whom such enquiry is held... ” Further, the Supreme Court, in State of Uttar Pradesh & Others v. Saroj Kumar Sinha", has considered conduct of departmental enquiry, as under: 27. A bare perusal ofthe aforesaid sub-rule shows that when the respondent had failed to submit the explanation to the charge-sheet it was incumbent upon the inquiry oy?i€er to fix a datedfor his appearance in the inquiry. It is only in a case when the government servant despite notice ofthe date fixed failed to appear that the inquiry Ojj‘icer can proceed with the inquiry ex parte. Even in such circumstances it is incumbent on the inquiry op‘icer to record the statement of witnesses mentioned in the charge~sheet Since the government servant is absent, he would clearly lose the benefit of cross- examination of the witnesses. But nonetheless in order to establish the charges the Department is required to produce the necessary evidence before the inquiry officer. This is so as to avoid the charge that the inquiry officer has acted as a prosecutor as well as ajudge. ‘ 28. An inquiry ojyicer acting in a quasi-judicial authority is in the position of an independent adjudicator. He is not supposed to be a representative of the department/discizdinary authority/Government. His function is to examine the evidence presented by the Department, even in the absence ofthe delinquent ojj‘icial to see as towhether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that the charges are proved. In the present case the aforesaidprocedure has not been observed. Since no oral evidence has been examined the documents have not been proved, and could not have been taken into consideration to conclude that the charges have been proved against the respondents. 29. A partfrom the above, by virtue, ofArticle 311(2) ofth Constitution of India the departmental enquiry had to be conducted in accordance with the rules ofnaturaljustice. It is a basis requirement of the rules of natural justice that an employee be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in any proceedings which may culminate in punishment being imposed on the employee. 30. When a departmental enquiry is conducted against the government servant it cannot be treated as a casual exercise. w e The enquiry proceedings also cannot be conducted with a closed mind. The inquiry onicer has t0 be wholly unbiased. The rules 0f natural justice are required to be observed to ensure not only thatjustice is done but is manifestly seen to be done. The object of rules of natural justice is to ensure that a government servant is treated fairly in proceedings which may culminate in imposition ofpunishment including dismissal/removalfrom service. 13. Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the instant case, prejudice caused to the petitioner is writ large as in absence of proper material, the petitioner was deprived of opportunity to put forward his case in his defence. The petitioner has accordingly been prejudiced as the charges have been found proved without considering the response of the petitioner. This is the case of perversity in enquiry as well as in the report. Thus, the order of removal is indefensible on the basis of enquiry report. The order of removal dated 01.10.1991 (Annexure P/26) and the order dated 26.11.1992 (Annexure P/28) and 10.12.1992 (Annexure P/29) whereby the appeal of the petitioner has been removed from service, are quashed. 14. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The petitioner shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits flowing from this order. 15; There shall be no order asto costs. Sdl‘ SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI Judge ‘f‘