IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD , THE DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL No.1647 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the order dated 19-01-2007 in W.P.No.4965 OF 2001 on the file of the High Court) Between: 1 The UCO Bank Chairman & Managing Director 10, B.T.M. Sarani, Kolkata-700 001 2 The General Manager (Operations II) ( Appellate Authority ) UCO Bank, 2, India Exchange Place, Kolkata 3 The Zonal Manager, ( Disciplinary Authority ) UCO Bank , Zonal Office E-5, Area Colony, Bhopal 4 The Executive Director ( Reviewing Authority ) UCO Bank, 10, B.T.M. Sarani Kolkata-700 001 ... APPELLANTS AND L.S.R. Murthy son of Viswanddha Sastry F-3, UCO ARCADE, Navodaya Colony, Srinagar Colony Extn., Hyderabad-500 073 ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Appellants: Mr. V. Ajay Kumar Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. K. Balagopal The Court made the following: Judgment: (Per Hon’ble Sri R. Subhash Reddy, J.) This writ appeal, under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, is filed by the respondents in W.P.No.4965 of 2001 aggrieved by the order dated 19-09-2007 passed by the learned single Judge. By the aforesaid order, the learned single Judge allowed the said writ petition and quashed the final order imposing punishment in the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the respondent herein. 2. The respondent herein was functioning as Manager of UCO Bank between May 1987 and February 1990 at its branch at Patighanpur. On the ground that he committed certain irregularities in the conduct, appraisal and reporting of the account of a Private Limited company, M/s. Geekay Wires Pvt. Ltd., disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him. In view of denial of the charges, after conducting necessary departmental enquiry, order dated 31-07-1999 was passed by the disciplinary authority reducing his pay from Rs.9,700/- to Rs.7,820/- for a period of one year. Further, it was ordered that reduction in the pay will have the effect of postponing his future increments. The respondent herein has questioned the said final order by way of departmental appeal and the General Manager (Operation II), who is the appellate authority, by order dated 04-12-2000, rejected the said appeal. After dismissal of the departmental appeal, the respondent filed W.P.No.4965 of 2001 questioning the final order dated 31-07-1999 passed in the disciplinary proceedings. 3. Before the learned single Judge, mainly, it was the case of the respondent herein that he was denied reasonable opportunity of defending himself in the enquiry as much as his request to examine certain witnesses in his defence was rejected by the enquiry officer. The learned single Judge, while recording a finding that the relevant Regulations governing the procedure for imposing major penalties did not empower either the enquiry officer or the disciplinary authority to reject the delinquent employee’s request for examination of witnesses in his defence, allowed the writ petition and set aside the final order passed in the disciplinary proceedings. 4. Heard Sri V. Ajay Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants-bank and Sri K. Balagopal, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-employee. 5. It is contended by Sri V. Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for the appellants, that as per the UCO Bank Officer Employees’ (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 (for short ‘the Regulations’) governing the procedure for imposing major penalties, it is not obligatory on the part of either the enquiry officer or the disciplinary authority to allow all the witnesses proposed to examined by the employee in the disciplinary proceedings. It is submitted that when the list of witnesses was furnished, the enquiring authority has considered the relevancy of such witnesses and refused to allow the said witnesses by recording a reason that the respondent-employee has not indicated any relevancy of the said witnesses with reference to the charges framed against him. It is submitted that, merely because all the witnesses who were proposed to be examined were not allowed, it cannot be said that the respondent-employee was denied reasonable opportunity in the enquiry proceedings. It is further submitted that it is always open to the enquiring authority to examine the relevancy of witnesses and allow only such of the witnesses who are relevant for the purpose of enquiry, on the charges framed against the delinquent employee. 6. On the other hand, it is contended by Sri K. Balagopal, learned counsel for the respondent-employee, that all the witnesses specified in the list given by the respondent-employee are relevant witnesses; in spite of the same, he was not allowed to examine such witnesses. It is submitted that as much as the respondent-employee wanted to examine the witnesses on his own, the appellants could not have denied for examination of such witnesses. It is submitted that the said action is arbitrary and it has resulted in passing of an adverse final order in the disciplinary proceedings. It is further submitted that in view of the procedure contemplated, the learned single Judge has rightly recorded a finding that the Regulations did not empower the enquiry officer to reject the request for examination of witnesses. 7. In exercise of powers conferred by Section 19 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, the Board of Directors of the UCO Bank in consultation with the Reserve Bank and with the previous sanction of the Central Government, framed the Regulations, titled as UCO Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976. Regulation 6 of the aforesaid Regulations deals with the procedure for imposing major penalties. For the purpose of deciding the issue in the present case, it is apposite to refer to Regulation 6 (10) to (12) of the Regulations. Under Regulation 6 (10)(a), the enquiring authority, shall where the officer employee does not admit all or any of the articles of charge, furnish to such officer employee a list of documents by which, and a list of witnesses by whom, the articles of charge are proposed to be proved. Under Regulation 6 (10)(b)(ii), the enquiring authority shall also record an order that the officer employee, may for the purpose of preparing his defence, submit a list of documents and witnesses that he wants for the enquiry. There is a note to Regulation 6(10)(b)(ii), which reads as under: “The relevancy of the documents and the examination of the witnesses referred to in item (ii) shall be given by the officer employee concerned.” 8. So far as the documentary evidence is concerned, there is a power, under proviso to Regulation 12, to the authority having the custody or possession of the documents to claim privilege if the production of such documents will be against public interest or the interest of the bank. 9. A reading of the aforesaid provisions, particularly, the note appended to Regulation 6(10)(b)(ii), makes it clear that it is obligatory on the part of the officer employee, while giving the list of witnesses proposed to be examined in his defence, to show the relevancy of such witnesses. The learned single Judge, while making a distinction, between the proviso to sub-regulation 12 of Regulation 6 and to that of other Regulations, has held that, in the absence of any provision in the Regulations, to reject such witnesses for examination, as proposed by the officer employee, the action of the enquiry officer not allowing such witnesses, is illegal. 10. In this case, it is to be noted that after initiation of disciplinary proceedings, the respondent-employee has given a list of witnesses as contemplated under Regulation 6(10)(b)(ii) of the Regulations, vide his letter dated 19-11-1997. But his request was rejected by the enquiry officer vide letter dated 28-11-1997 holding that the relevancy of the witnesses as shown by the respondent- employee was vague and totally irrelevant. In the impugned order, the learned single Judge did not go into the relevancy of the witnesses as proposed by the respondent-employee, with reference to the charges framed against him, but, merely on the ground that there is no such provision in the Regulations to reject such request, accepted the plea of the respondent-employee and allowed the writ petition. We have carefully considered the procedure contemplated under the Regulations with reference to the note appended to Regulation 6(10)(b)(ii) of the Regulations. When it is indicated in the note that the officer employee has to give the list of witnesses to be examined on his behalf in the enquiry, by showing the relevancy, it is always open to the enquiry officer to examine the relevancy of such witnesses vis-à-vis the charges framed against the delinquent employee. It cannot be ruled out that, many a time, the employees against whom disciplinary proceedings are initiated try to prolong the issue by examining the witnesses and also by requisitioning the documents, which are irrelevant for the purpose of the enquiry, on the charges framed against them. The note appended to Regulation 6(10)(b)(ii) of the Regulations, which mandates the employee to show the relevancy of the documents and the witnesses, impliedly gives power to the authority to examine the relevancy and to decide whether to allow such documents and witnesses. We are of the view that, to examine relevancy of witnesses, there need not be any specific provision in the Regulations. Further, it is also well settled in the service jurisprudence that unless the employee pleads and proves the prejudice caused to him on account of denial of opportunity of examining a particular witness, it is not open to nullify the final order passed in the disciplinary proceedings, which is otherwise in conformity with the Regulations. 11. As much as the learned single Judge did not examine the relevancy of the witnesses who were proposed to be examined by the respondent-employee, we allow this writ appeal and remit the matter for fresh consideration by the learned single Judge. 12. For the foregoing reasons, the order dated 19-01-2007 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.No.4965 of 2001 is set aside. Registry is directed to post W.P.No.4965 of 2001 for final hearing before the learned single Judge, hearing such subject matter of cases, as per the present sitting arrangements. __________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ. _______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. December , 2008 MRR