K “3‘ g‘xiwiv‘ ' gig (g, - L x WW IN THE HIGH GOU§T OF MADHYA HiéDESH AT JABALLE’IR.‘ Misc. Petition 30.126 /1993. Ram Prasad Khande sbn of Shri S.R$handa, resident of Viuage Navgawan, post- ’ Kondia, distx'icizuEilasyxn‘. PET IT ION-EQR u Versus - :- 1- Bilaspw Faai§m$§¥iétw1ya GraminBank, Eead Uffice Dayalbanm Bilaspur, thaugh its Chair-man. REsmmnEmg H54 Ly 5L; Mmvin‘Qxri 07’mbsgzsrzm 2- 3isciplin€iry Khthority—cum~; Ghairman, B11%Pur Eaipur ‘ ’ Kshetriya Greunin Bank, - s‘ Bilasw. w 5.. Board of Birectcr, ~ BilasPur Raipm‘Kéheu‘iya Gramin Bank, Buaspur. mmmmn mbm‘mw’xcms 226 Am) 2gz OF TH cwsmxgm' offamm, EORéIssmmE 01.1 warn: m THE NATURE OF cmmommx, Lmmxwms __ EOHIBIT,I0N:ETd.mD FOR (Ema wamgwgms,‘ amEccrICNpmEcTmNs, Gimmlow gs. ”w_.“‘M‘Rm wk? Sm Yr ; “ ‘ ‘ E r HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH . BILASPUR WR!T PETlTlON NO,970 OF 1993 Ram Prasad Khande PETITIONER Versus VBiIaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank&Others (Writ petition underArticle 226 & 227 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present :— Ms. Smita Ghai Advocate for the petitioner Shri Pramod Verma Sr Advocate With Shri Sumlt Verma Advocate for the respondents RESPONDENTS ORDER OL RA (Passed on this 12t day ofJuIy, 2010) Chaiienge in this petition is to the order dated 26.4.1988 (Annexure 2 P/1 1) whereby the petitioner was removed from service. The brief facts, which are necessary to dispose of this petition, are that the petitioner was appeinted in the Officer cadre with the respondent-Bank in the year 1984. A charge sheet dated 3.12.1986 (Annexure P/1) was issued to the petitioner for having committed misconduct. A repiy to the said show—cause—noti’ce was submitted by the petitioner on 13.12.1986 (Annexure P/2). The petitioner received a communication dated 31.1.1987 (Annexure P/3) whereby the petitioner was informed that a departmentai enquiry was to be initiated against him. After enquiry, an order dated 26.4.1988 (Annexure P/11) was passed whereby the petitioner was removed from service. Thereafter, according to the petitioner, the petitioner preferred an appeal against the said removal ‘order which was rejected by the Board of Directors vide resolution dated 23/24.§.1989 and the order was communicated to the petitioner vide letter 26.5.1989 (Annexure P/13). .The order dated 26.5.1989 is not under challenge. M s. Ghai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the charge sheet does not enclose any list of documents on which reliance was made to initiate enquiry after issuing charge sheet. Further, it also does not contain any list of witnesses on the basis of which, the said charge sheet was issued. Thus, the enquiry is vitiated. Ms. Ghai further submits that despite repeated representations made to the officers concerned for supply of relevant documents, the petitioner was denied access to the relevant documents. The disciplinary authority has taken a stand that the documents in respect of the charge sheet for the purposes of examining the charge sheet is improper and irregular and the petitioner could have inspected all other documents which were available with the bank. Ms. Ghai next submits that no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to have inspection of the relevant documents and, as such, the petitioner was not in a position to reply to the show cause notice effectively and properly in the enquiry proceedings. Only inspection was allowed which was not sufficient for preparation of defence and put fonNard his case properly before Enquiry Officer. On the other hand, Shri Verma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank submits that there is no document on record to show that list of documents was supplied to the petitioner along with the charge sheet. However, during the enquiry, all the documents were made available to the petitioner for inspection and sufficient time was granted to the petitioner to prepare his defence. During the course of enquiry the witnesses were examined and the petitioner cross-examined them. According to the respondents, at the time of enquiry, the petitioner did not raise any voice for non-supply of relevant documents. The enquiry officer afforded full opportunity of 16‘ / hearing to the petitioner and all the charges leveied against the petitioner were found proved. Thereafter, the impugned order of removal was passed in accordance with law. The Board of Directors after considering the facts and circumstances of the case in its letters and spirit dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner by a reasoned order. Thus, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. lt is true that along with the charge sheet and imputation of charges, there was no list of documents and, as such, the petitioner Was not afforded an opportunity to put forward his case in response to the show cause notice along with the charge sheet. lt is crystal clear that no documents were supplied along with the charge sheet on the basis of which charges were framed. The petitioner had no opportunity to meet the charges for want of material document. Some documents were given during departmental proceeding but the relevant documents on the basis of which finding was recorded were not made available to the petitioner. Thus, the enquiry is vitiated. 6. The Supreme Court, in Kashinath Dikshita v. Union of India & Others1, the Supreme Court observed as under: “10...When a government servant is facing, a disciplinary proceeding, he is entitled to be afforded a reasonable opportunity to meet the charges against him in an effective manner. And no one facing a departmental enquiry can effectively meet the charges unless the copies of the relevant statements and documents to be used against him are made available to him. ln the absence of such copies, how can the concerned employee prepare his defence, cross—examine the witnesses, and point out the inconsistencies with a view to show that the allegations are incredible?" 1 (1 986) 3 SCC 229 §_ y .. 7. In Chandramani Tewari ‘v. Union of India (Through General Manager, Eastern Railways)2, the Supreme Court observed as unden / £45 “4....Article 311 of the Constitution requires that reasonable opportunity of defence must be afforded to a government servant before he is awarded major punishment of dismissal. It further contemplates that disciplinary enquiry must be held in accordance with the rules in a just and fair manner. The procedure at the enquiry must be consistent with the principles of natural justice. Principles of natural justice require that the copy of the document if any relied upon against the party charged should be given to him and he should be afforded opportunity to cross examine the witnesses and to produce his own witnesses in his defence. If findings are recorded against the government servant placing reliance on a document which may not have been disclosed to him or the copy whereof may not have been supplied to him during the enquiry when demanded, that would contravene principles of natural justice rendering the enquiry, and the consequential order of punishment illegal and void. These principles are well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court." 8. ln Govt. of A.P. & Others v. A. Venkata Raidus, the Supreme Court "observed as under: 9. Further, the Supreme Court, in State of Uttar Pradesh & Others v. Saroj Kumar Sinha", has considered conduct of departmental enquiry, as under: “9...lt is a settled principle of natural justice that if any material is sought to be used in an enquiry, then copies of that material should be supplied to the party against whom such enquiry is held..." 27. A bare perusal of the aforesaid sub-rule shows that when the respondent had failed to submit the explanation to the charge-sheet it was incumbent upon'the inquiry officer to fix a date for his appearance in the inquiry. lt is only in a case when the. government servant despite notice of the date fixed failed to apear that the j 3 (2007) 1 scc 338 ; 4 (2010) 2 scc 772 ? 2 (1987) Supp. scc 518 2:/ % I ¢ p inquiry officer can proceed with the inquiry ex parte. Even in such circumstances it is incumbent on the inquiry officer to record the statement of witnesses mentioned in' the charge-sheet, Since the government servant is absent, he would clearly lose the benefit of cross-examination of the witnesses. But nonetheless in order to establish the charges the Department is required to produce the necessary evidence before the inquiry officer. This is so as to avoid the charge that the inquiry officer has acted as a prosecutor as well as a judge. 28. An inquiry officer acting in a quasi—judicial authority is in the position of an independent adjudicator. He is not supposed to be a representative of the department/disciplinary authority/Government. His function is to examine the evidence presented by the Department, even in the absence of the delinquent official to see as to whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that the charges are proved. In the present case the aforesaid procedure has not been observed. Since no oral evidence has been examined the documents have not been proved, and could not have been taken into consideration to conclude that the charges have been proved against the respondents. 29. A part from the above, by virtue of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of lndia the departmental enquiry had to be conducted in accordance with the rules of natural justice; lt is a basis requirement of the rules of natural justice that an employee be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in any proceedings which may culminate in punishment being imposed on the employee. 30. When a departmental enquiry is conducted against the government servant it cannot be treated as a casual exercise. The enquiry proceedings also cannot be conducted with a closed mind. The inquiry officer has to be wholly unbiased. The rules of natural justice are required to be observed to ensure not only that justice is done but is manifestly seen to be done. The object of rules of natural justice is to ensure that a government servant is treated fairly in proceedings which may culminate in imposition of punishment including dismissal/ removal from service. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove and applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the instant case, prejudice caused to 10.