HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD W.A.No.524 of 2001 Date: 30-04-2011 Between: Shaik Rafeeq Ahmed ……….Appellant and The Chief General Manager-cum-Disciplinary Authority and others ……… Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD W.A.No.524 of 2001 JUDGMENT: (Per BPR, J) This Appeal, under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, is filed by the unsuccessful writ petitioner aggrieved by the orders of the learned single Judge, dated 12-12-2000 in dismissing the writ filed by him in W.P.No.13036 of 1987. Heard Sri P.R. Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri B. Uma Devi appearing on behalf of Sri K. Srinivas Murthy, the learned senior counsel for the respondents. In the writ filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner sought for a writ of Certiorari to quash the order of dismissal passed by the first respondent in proceedings No.DPC.HYD.R/II/No.203, dated 29-08-1983 and further to direct reinstatement of the petitioner into service with all benefits. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, briefly the case of the appellant as set forth runs to the following effect: The appellant was appointed as Cashier in the erstwhile Imperial Bank of India in the year 1951 and later promoted as Branch Manager in the year 1978. While working as an Officer at Shanti Nagar Branch, Kurnool, he was placed under suspension on 21-04- 1980 alleging certain irregularities committed while sanctioning the loan as Branch Manager at Gudur. On 09-09-1981 a charge sheet was issued leveling as many as seven charges. On 26-09-1981 the appellant requested the disciplinary authority to furnish the documents based on which the charges were framed to enable him to submit his explanation to the charge sheet. Without furnishing the documents, the disciplinary authority proceeded with a regular enquiry. Thus, the appellant was denied of an opportunity to submit his explanation. However, the appellant offered to participate in the enquiry, but the enquiring authority has disallowed several questions put by his representative, while allowing the leading questions of the presenting officer to his witnesses. The questions put on behalf of the appellant in the cross-examination were turned down alleging it is a leading question. The request of the appellant to furnish several documents required to prove his innocence was disallowed and the permission sought to examine some of the witnesses was also disallowed. Out of 11 witnesses, only four witnesses were allowed to be examined excluding the appellant. Hence, the appellant has been denied of reasonable opportunity to defend his case. The enquiry officer in his report, dated 12-05-1983, held that the charges A, D(ii) and D(iii), E, F and G(ii) were found to be proved and charges B, C, D(i) and G(i) were not proved. The disciplinary authority by an order, dated 29-08-1983 has accepted the enquiry report and imposed major penalty of dismissal from service. On appeal, it was dismissed as per the orders, dated 12-07-1984 confirming the order passed by the disciplinary authority. Neither the disciplinary authority nor the appellate authority has recorded any reasons while accepting the recommendations of the enquiry officer. The review filed by the appellant was also dismissed as per the orders, dated 10-02-1987. Against these orders, the appellant filed the writ petition. It is the case of the appellant that the enquiry officer mainly relied on the statements of the third parties in Exs.P-35 and P-36, which were said to have been recorded by the investigating authority at the time of conducting preliminary enquiry. One R. Sesha Reddy and one G. Abdul Waheed, to whom most of the borrowers alleged to have paid amounts for payment of the same to the appellant, were not examined. Failure to examine the main witnesses has vitiated the enquiry. The order of dismissal is illegal and is in violation of the principles of natural justice and also mandatory provisions of the Rules. Rule 50(2) XVII contemplates giving an opportunity to the delinquent to question him on the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence for the purpose of enabling the employee to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him, if the employee has not got himself examined. The disciplinary authority should have followed the said procedure which is mandatory. The disciplinary authority and the appellate authority are required to record reasons while imposing major punishment by appreciating the evidence on record after duly considering the objections of the delinquent officer. The appellant was not furnished with the copies of the documents based on which the charges were framed. Insptie of the request, he was denied of the documents, hence, could not submit the explanation. The regular enquiry was proceeded without providing any opportunity to submit the explanation. The statements recorded in the preliminary enquiry or the preliminary enquiry report were not furnished. But, the said statements were relied upon during the course of enquiry. In fact, the report submitted by the enquiry officer was also not furnished to the appellant. Thus, the appellant had no opportunity to submit the explanation even for the enquiry report. Thus Rule 50(4) is also violated. Therefore, the order of dismissal from service, dated 29- 08-1983 cannot sustain and the same is liable to be set aside. All these pleas as set forth herein were also part of the pleas, which have been raised before the learned single Judge, which virtually run into the merits and appreciation of the allegations as made against the appellant and assailing the correctness of the conclusions arrived at. The learned single Judge, by taking into consideration the parameters of judicial review of disciplinary proceedings as well established and referring to the principles laid down in INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LTD. v. ASHOK KUMAR ARORA[1], UNION BANK OF INDIA v. VISHWANADHAN [2], STATE OF HARYANA v. RATTAN SINGH [3], J.D. JAIN v. MANAGEMENT OF S.B.I. [4] and several other decisions, sought to proceed that mere finding violation of the principles of natural justice would not result in invalidation without the real prejudice suffered on account thereof having been pleaded and demonstrated. Therefore, having a look at the chequred events, which took place, the learned single Judge categorically found that the disciplinary proceedings and the consequent penalties are thus found to be impeccable and therefore, there is no error of discretion, irrationality, violation of principles of natural justice or any procedural infirmity in the disciplinary proceedings, and the penalty imposed is commensurate with the guilt and the misconduct duly proved. We have once again considered, in detail and in depth, all the submissions made and various decisions, which have been cited across the Bar, but however there being no dispute in regard to the basic proposition about the extent of judicial review and competency within which such re-appreciation is permissible, we are afraid that we do not find any such ground or error which would warrant interference. We are in entire agreement with the learned single Judge not only on the finding of fact as arrived at, but also even on the aspect of extent of judicial review. Hence, there are no merits in this writ appeal. The writ appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ B. PRAKASH RAO, J ___________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 30-04-2011 YCR [1] (1997) 3 SCC 72 [2] (1998) 4 SCC 350 [3] AIR 1997 SC 1512 [4] (1982) 1 SCC 143