IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO : 26357 of 1995 Between: BOMPADA MALATHI W/O P.V.GIRIDHARA RAO SRI VISAKA BANK POLANKI BRANCH SRIKAKULAM DIST ..... PETITIONER AND 1 THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS /APPELLATE AUTHORITY OF SRI VISAKA GRAMEENA BANK SRIKAKULAM 2 THE CHAIRMAN,DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY SRI VISAKA GRAMEENA BANK, SRIKAKULAM 3 SRI VISAKA GRAMEENA BANK ,HEAD OFFICE SRIKAKULAM, REP, BY ITS CHAIRMAN SRIKAKULAM .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to to issue writ order or direction more particularly one in the of Writ or centriorari quashing the order dt 3-4-95 issued by the 2nd respondent in D.P.No.7which was confirmed by the appellateauthority by an order dt.28-8-95 by the Ist respondent as its meeting dt.23-8-95 which was communicated to the petitioners in D.P.No.278/95-96 by the 2nd respondent,declaring that the orders oare highly arbitrary illegal and unconstitutional violative of Article 14,16,19 & 21 of the constitution of India and opposed to law and the principles of naturals justice , that the enquiry conducted against the petitioners is vitiated as it was perfunctary and improper,contrary to law and the principles of natural justice , with a consequential direction to the respondents to resnstate the petitioner into service with all attendent benefits with retrospective effect from 19-6-90 i.e., the date of suspension ,and pass. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.M.VISWANADHAM Counsel for the Respondent No.: MR.K.SRINIVASA MURTHY The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GOPALA KRISHNA TAMADA WRIT PETITION NO: 26357 of 1995 ORDER: Petitioner who was working as filed supervisor in Sri Visakha Grameena Bank at Polaki Branch of Srikakulam District approached this court and filed the present Writ Petition questioning the order passed by the disciplinary authority i.e. second respondent herein whereby she was dismissed from service and as affirmed by the appellate authority i.e. third respondent herein by order dated 23.08.1995. The brief facts are that during the temporary absence of the Branch Manager of the said bank, the petitioner was placed in charge as Manager of the said branch for different short periods. On an anonymous petition dated 28.04.1990 the General Manager of the Bank ordered an enquiry into and during the course of enquiry found certain irregularities like shortage of valuable articles kept in the Chest of the bank. But, according to the petitioner, either the General Manager or the enquiry officer did not probe as to who is or who could be exactly responsible for the irregularities and even during the audit also no attempts were made to fix up any individual responsibility having regard to the prior record that may be available and without conducting proper preliminary enquiry the management framed 12 charges against her and issued a charge sheet dated 26.11.1990 for which the petitioner had also offered her explanation dated 04.04.1991. Thereafter a regular enquiry was conducted, but according to the petitioner during the enquiry no proper opportunity was given to her to defend her case and no documents, which she sought for, were also furnished in support of her claim. Ultimately on 06.05.1994 the enquiry officer conducted the enquiry in her absence, inspite of her representation to adjourn the date of enquiry in view of the ill health to her nursing baby. Thereafter she submitted a written representation dated 07.05.1994 in person to the enquiry officer requesting him to provide her an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses, but to her surprise, the enquiry officer sent her a copy of the minutes of the enquiry proceedings dt.07.05.1994. Subsequently, as per the instructions of the enquiry officer she appeared before him on 23.07.1994 along with her counsel. But on that day neither the presenting officer nor the prosecution witnesses were present nor she was permitted to examine the defence witnesses taken by her. The enquiry officer simply heard her comments and received the documents given by her and she also submitted her written brief on 18.08.1994. Thereafter on 13.01.1995 she received a copy of the findings of the enquiry officer dated 04.01.1995 along with a covering letter of the Chairman dated 11.01.1995 finding that all the charges except charges 7 and 10 framed against her are duly proved and called for her explanation. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner approached this court and filed a writ petition to quash the proceedings dated 11.01.1995, but, however, it was dismissed as premature probably as the proceedings dated 11.1.1995 are only a notice calling for her explanation. Inspite of her detailed representation dated 08.02.1995 the Chairman of the Bank issued proceedings dated 03.04.1995 holding that the charges are proved against her and passing a punishment dismissing her from service without giving her an opportunity to submit her representation regarding any proposed punishment. The petitioner further submitted that aggrieved by the order of the Chairman, she preferred an appeal before the Board of Directors and the same was dismissed by a non-speaking order. Assailing the said order of the appellate authority, the petitioner filed this Writ Petition. Heard both sides. The main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order dated 28.08.1995 passed by the appellate authority is not a speaking order and according to him the said order was passed without assigning any reasons. Per contra, the learned standing counsel for the Bank submitted that the disciplinary authority having taken into consideration the enquiry report and the other relevant material passed a detailed order and as such the appellate authority had passed the said order dismissing the appeal on 28.08.1995. It may not be necessary for this court to go into various factual aspects for the reason that this court is thoroughly convinced that the order dated 28.08.1995 does not stand to scrutiny by any stretch of imagination. The primary authority as well as the appellate authority are expected to go into the merits and pass appropriate orders giving reasons. The order dated 28.08.1995 is as follows: “With reference to your appeal dated 10.05.1995 to the Board on the punishment imposed by the Chairman and Disciplinary Authority and communicated to you vide letter No.D.P.7 dated 03.04.95, we have to advise that the Board and Appellate Authority at their 121st Board Meeting held on dt.23.08.1995 after careful examination of your appeal decided to uphold the action taken by the Disciplinary Authority. 02. Please acknowledge this letter on the duplicate hereof. Yours faithfully, Sd/- x x x x x x CHAIRMAN AND DISCIPLINARY AUTHORTY. “ The said order in my considered view, can definitely be said that it is in violation of all canons of law. The appellate authority did not say as to why it is concurring with the disciplinary authority and the said order also does not support as to whether the petitioner was given an opportunity to advance her arguments. In the light of the above discussion, this court is thoroughly satisfied that the order dated 28.08.1995 passed by the appellate authority is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed in part and the order dated 28.08.1995 passed by the appellate authority i.e. first respondent herein is hereby set aside and the first respondent is hereby directed to consider the appeal preferred by the petitioner on merits and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, it is made clear that the appellate authority, if the rules permit, shall afford an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner to ventilate her grievance. No order as to costs. -------------- 02.06.2009 kvsn