IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA LPA No. 39 of 2007 Judgment reserved on: 29.4.2008 Date of decision: 13.5.2008 Bank of India & Ors. ……..Appellants Vs. Sita Ram …. Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Appellants : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate with Mr. Malay Kaushal, Advocate. For the Respondent : Mr. Vivek Thakur, Advocate. Per Kuldip Singh, Judge. This appeal under Clause 10 of Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 24.5.2007 passed by learned Single Judge in CWP No.1070/2004 directing the Bank to reinstate the respondent within a period of four weeks on the receipt of copy of judgment and thereafter the respondent would be permitted to make representation against the inquiry report dated 22.8.2003 and thereafter disciplinary authority passed suitable order after taking into consideration the representation made by respondent to the inquiry report. The disciplinary authority, if so desired, can put the Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment?Yes …2… respondent under suspension after reinstatement during the pendency of the proceedings. 2. The respondent was charge sheeted and as per inquiry report Annexure P-5 the respondent committed misconduct during the period 11.8.1993 to 24.5.2003 during his posting at Maliyawar , which are as follows:- “ (A) That a cheque bearing no.2546512 dated 13/01/2003 for Rs.30000/- was given to Shri Sita Ram by Smt. Seema Kumari, Proprietor of Shri Ganesh Trading Co. for receiving Payment on her behalf. (B) Shri Sita Ram received cash payment of Rs.30000/- from the branch casher Sh. Vijay Kumar, who made the payment of the said cheque against token no.397 to Shri Sita Ram. (C ) Shri Sita Ram did not hand over the amount of the payment to the proprietor of the firm even after repeated demands”. 3. The inquiry officer in the inquiry report dated 22.8.2003 Annexure P-5 has come to the conclusion that all the charges stand proved. The show cause ( punishment) notice dated 21.1.2004 Annexure P-15 was issued by the disciplinary authority to the respondent wherein it was observed that inquiry officer vide his report dated 22.8.2003 has concluded that all the charges levelled against the respondent have been proved for violating clause 5(j) of the Bipartite Settlement dated 10.4.2002. The Clause 5(j) has also been reproduced in Annexure P-15 which is as follows:- “Doing any act prejudicial to the interest of the bank or gross negligence or negligence involving or likely to involve the bank in serious loss”. …3… 4. The respondent was advised to show cause within three days. He was also advised to appear for personal hearing. In the show cause notice the disciplinary authority had proposed punishment for compulsory retirement from Bank’s service under Clause 6 ( C ) of the Bipartite Settlement dated 10.4.2002. In pursuance of show cause notice the respondent was given time for personal hearing on 4.2.2004 and the disciplinary authority passed punishment order dated 9.2.2004 Annexure P-16 and ordered compulsory retirement of respondent from Bank’s service with immediate effect under Clause 6 ( C ) of the Bipartite Settlement dated 10.4.2002. The respondent filed an appeal which was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide appellate order dated 23.7.2004 Annexure P-18. The respondent challenged the inquiry report, punishment order dated 9.2.2004 Annexure P-16 and appellate order dated 23.7.2004 Annexure P-18 by way of writ petition which was allowed by learned Single Judge as noticed above. 5. We have heard Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Vivek Thakur, learned counsel for the respondent and gone through the record. Mr. Ramakant Sharma has submitted that learned Single Judge has erred in allowing the writ petition on the ground that copy of the inquiry report was not supplied to the respondent before the issuance of the show cause notice which has caused serious prejudice to the respondent. He has submitted that copy of inquiry report was supplied to the respondent which is clear from para-5 of the shown cause notice dated 21.1.2004 …4… Annexure P-15. The purpose of the supply of the inquiry report to the delinquent was to make proper representation to the disciplinary authority in view of the findings recorded by the inquiry officer. The respondent never raised the grievance of non-supply of copy of inquiry report either before disciplinary authority or even in appeal before the appellate authority. He has submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Single Judge has erred in allowing the writ petition. Per contra Mr. Vivek Thakur, learned counsel representing the respondent has supported the impugned judgment. He has submitted that the punishment order dated 9.2.2004 Annexure P-16 and the appellate order dated 23.7.2004 Annexure P-18 are based upon violation of Clause 5 (j) of the Bipartite Settlement dated 10.4.2002. He has submitted that Clause 5 (j) of the Bipartite Settlement is not at all attracted, even if, the case is taken as it is. According to him the case against the respondent is of no evidence so far Clause 5(j) of the Bipartite Settlement is concerned. 6. We are not going into the merits of contentious issues of facts and law raised by either side before us in the appeal in view of the order passed by learned Single Judge which in fact has directed the Bank to reinstate the respondent (writ petitioner) within a period of four weeks on receipt of copy of judgment, the writ petitioner was permitted to make a representation against the inquiry report dated 22.8.2003 and thereafter disciplinary authority has been given full liberty to pass suitable order after taking into consideration the representation made by the writ petitioner to the inquiry report. The …5… disciplinary authority has also been given liberty to put the writ petitioner under suspension after reinstatement during the pendency of the proceedings. The order dated 24.5.2007 in no way curtails the authority of the disciplinary authority to pass the ultimate order. The disciplinary authority has been just directed to pass suitable order after taking into consideration the representation, if any, made by the writ petitioner as directed by learned Single Judge. We therefore, decline to interfere in the order dated 24.5.2007 passed by learned Single Judge, accordingly, appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. The interim order dated 2.8.2007 stands vacated. ( Deepak Gupta) Judge (Kuldip Singh) Judge May 13, 2008 (sks)