CW 807/06 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.807/2006 Bhagirath Singh Versus State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur & Ors. Date of Order ::: 22/01/09 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Suresh Chand Goyal, for petitioner None for respondents Bank Instant petition has been filed assailing order dt.20/04/02 (Ann.9) whereby petitioner has been inflicted with penalty of removal from service against which appeal was preferred but rejected vide non-speaking order dt.18/01/06 (Ann.10A) produced alongwith application seeking amendment duly allowed vide order dt.05/04/06. petitioner was working as Clerk-cum Cashier and at the relevant time, while posted at Dholpur, was served with charge sheet dt. 16/08/92 (Ann.1) imputing three charges. Thereafter regular disciplinary inquiry was initiated and as per inquiry report (Ann.5), all the charges were found proved against him – copy whereof was served upon him alongwith notice dt.11/03/02 (Ann.4), to show cause as to why he should not be removed from service; to which he submitted his detailed reply but without assigning any reason, he was finally inflicted CW 807/06 //2// with penalty of removal from service vide order dt.20/04/02 (Ann.9) – against which he preferred departmental appeal that too was also rejected vide cryptic order dt.18/01/06 (Ann.10A). It has also been brought to the notice of this Court that for the self-same alleged charges imputed against him, criminal case was also registered U/s 409, IPC and after regular trial, he was acquitted by competent court of jurisdiction as is evident from judgment dt. 13/07/05 (Ann.13). Counsel submits that main witnesses were account holders for which he was imputed with charges vide charge sheet (Ann.1) but none of them was examined in course of disciplinary inquiry – in absence of their statement being recorded, very premises on which disciplinary authority held him guilty is not legally sustainable and the finding of guilt is not supported by any evidence on record. Counsel further submits that when inquiry officer was personally influenced and acted in a bias manner - of which specific statement was made by him but neither the disciplinary nor the appellate authority considered the same. Counsel further contends that despite his repeated requests made to get CW 807/06 //3// accounts statements examined through hand- writing expert but on mere statement of two departmental witnesses (GP Gupta & KK Sharma) he was held guilty, which has resulted in violation of principles of natural justice. Counsel further contends that once criminal case registered for self-same allegations as imputed in course of disciplinary inquiry vide charge sheet (Ann.1), stood culminated into acquittal of petitioner from criminal charges vide judgment dt.13/07/05 (Ann.13), it was all the more necessary for the appellate authority to examine and take note of this crucial aspect before rejecting appeal preferred by him. Counsel further submits that neither disciplinary authority nor appellate authority have examined his submissions made in detail and at both the stages, cryptic orders were passed assigning no reasons as to why submissions made by petitioner were not found to be worthy of consideration; and such action of respondents was also in violation of principles of natural justice. None appeared on behalf of respondent Bank despite notices duly served as is apparent from service report – according to which, CW 807/06 //4// notices were served way back on 18/12/2006. I have considered contention of Counsel for petitioner and with his assistance, examined material on record. Three charges were levelled against petitioner imputing allegations that he did certain transactions making entries in saving Bank accounts of three account-holders without their permission. Petitioner submitted representation pointing certain objections during inquiry that these account holders be summoned for recording their statements which would alone clarify as to whether tainted entries were made at the instance of account holders or the delinquent (petitioner) was the author of such entries allegedly made in bank accounts and the same be sent to the FSL for its report, which alone would show as to who is responsible for alleged entries. Despite objections raised, account holders were not summoned and at the same time, out of list of departmental witnesses, none deposed about petitioner having made such alleged entries. However, two witnesses (GP Gupta & KK Sharma) deposed against petitioner. Procedure of inquiry for major misconduct is to be regulated in terms of Para 12 of memo Settlement on Disciplinary Action CW 807/06 //5// which lays down the procedure to hold inquiry in consonance with principles of natural justice. From a perusal of inquiry report (Ann.5) it reveals that there is no basis/discussion of having arrived at the conclusion in holding charges proved against petitioner and only depicts final conclusion in holding him guilty. After this cryptic report made available to petitioner while calling for his explanation, he submitted detailed representation specifically pointing out about facts deposed by departmental witnesses (GP Gupta & KK Sharma) and relied upon by inquiring authority in holding him guilty and further pointing out irregularities committed by inquiring authority in course of inquiry proceedings but the disciplinary authority has not examine the same and without assigning reasons, served him a show cause notice as to why he should not removed from service. It is relevant to state that petitioner again submitted detailed reply (dt.03/04/02 Ann.6 & dt.20/04/02 (Ann.8) to the show cause notice dt.30/03/02 (Ann.7) pointing out discrepancies committed in course of inquiry and and had also assailed the finding of guilt recorded in inquiry report; yet disciplinary authority did not even care to look into CW 807/06 //6// submissions made by the petitioner specifically raised in his reply dt.03/04/02 (Ann.6) & 20/04/02 (Ann.8); and without due application of mind, disciplinary authority inflicted penalty of removal from service vide order dt.20/04/02 (Ann.9); against which even appeal (Ann.10) was preferred by petitioner in a comprehensive manner apart from pointing out about final fate of criminal case registered U/s 409, IPC vide judgment dt.13/07/05 (Ann.13); but the appellate authority has also not taken care to look into the same and further failed to consider change in circumstances having taken place; besides submissions made by petitioner on merits; and without application of mind, appellate authority too rejected his appeal vide cryptic order dt. 18/01/06 (Ann.10A). Impugned order of disciplinary or appellate authority does not disclose that either of authorities has applied its mind and looked into material on record. Neither inquiring/disciplinary authority nor appellate authority has taken care to look into representation/appeal preferred by petitioner, while examining the record of inquiry and recording finding of guilt against him. Orders impugned are totally oblivious of aforesaid CW 807/06 //7// facts; and as such is not only a non-speaking but also cryptic order. In the opinion of this Court, inquiring and disciplinary authority have completely failed to discharge their obligation of consideration of explanation of petitioner submitted in course of inquiry or before disciplinary authority while he was served with show cause notice before inflicting penalty of removal upon him. It is true that recording of reasons may not be required to be elaborately discussed but atleast the order impugned would manifest on which the finding of guilt is recorded against delinquent so that in course of judicial review, it can be inferred that there was due application of mind by the authority either while recording the finding of guilt or inflicting penalty upon delinquent. But in instant case, when inquiry report itself, is a cryptic having not disclosed reasons – on the basis whereof, finding of guilt was recorded by inquiring authority, in such circumstances, it was all the more necessary and expected from disciplinary authority to examine the record of inquiry in totality and taking note of submissions made by petitioner, to pass a speaking order while inflicting penalty, which CW 807/06 //8// may atleast disclose about due application of mind. Reasons cannot be gathered from official notes or files for sustaining a non-speaking order. Mere recording of conclusions does not satisfy requirement of passing of a speaking order which is certainly a part and parcel of principles of natural justice. In case an order is non-speaking, it certainly suffers from an error of law apparent on the face of record, which can certainly be interfered with by this Court in its writ jurisdiction U/Art.226 of Constitution. Consequently, writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. Order of punishment dt. 20/04/02(Ann.9) passed by disciplinary authority & dt.18/01/06 (Ann.10A) passed by appellate authority rejecting appeal of petitioner (Ann.10) are hereby quashed & set aside. Respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service. However, respondents will be free to proceed with the inquiry in accordance with law after due compliance of principles of natural justice. No costs. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p.8/807CW06-22-JnInq.doc