PETITIONER:
STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
AJAY KUMAR GULATI
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 16/07/1996
BENCH:
JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J)
SEN, S.C. (J)
CITATION:
JT 1996 (6) 477 1996 SCALE (5)226
ACT
HEADNOTE
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENTB.P.JEEVAN REDDY,J.
Leave granted. Heard the counsel for the parties.
This appeal is preferred by the employer, State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur against the judgment and order of the Delhi High Court giving certain directions with respect to the scope of disciplinary enquiry to be conducted against the respondent-employee.
A disciplinary enquiry was held against the respondent with respect to certain grave charges. The enquiry officer reported that the charges were established. Respondent submitted his comments and objections to the report of the enquiry officer After considering the report and the objections the disciplinary authority passed the following order on April 29 4. It is indeed a communication addressed to the respondent:
"With reference to your
representation dated the 16th
Decembers 1993, with regard to
proceedings and findings of the
Enquiry Officer constituted earlier
to go into the charges against your
we have carefully gone into the
points raised by you in your
representation and having applied
our mind dispassionately have
observed that though his findings
are sufficient for taking a view in
the matter to expel every iota of
doubt and to provide every
opportunity to you to put your
defences another opportunity in the
name of justice may be given to you
to make your position clear.
I have, therefore,, issued orders
for conducting the enquiry against
you afresh and have appointed Shri
S.K.Supekars, Branch Manager,
D.N.Market Ahmedabad as Enquiry
Officer to conduct the necessary
departmental enquiry. The notice
dated 29.4.1994 issued by me in
this respect is enclosed.
The date, time and place of the
enquiry will be advised to you by
the Enquiry Officer. You are
advised to remain available to him
as and when required. Please also
finalise the selection of your
representative for defending your
case, before the commencement of
the proceedings in case you wish to
engage one.
Please acknowledge receipt.
Yours faithfully,
sd/
C.K. MISHRA
Notified Disciplinary Authority."
On the same days the very same authority addressed another communication to Sri S.K.Supekars Branch Manager State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur, D.N.Market, Ahmedabad intimating that he has been appointed the enquiry officer and asking him to commence the enquiry on May 26, 1994 and complete the same within the period prescribed. The communication reads as follows:
"The abovenamed was issued charge
sheet no. DGM/DPS/159 dated
24.9.1991 for committing certain
Acts of misconduct while posted as
ALPMO at Amar Colony, New Delhi
branch. Following the denial of
charge by Shri Gulati, matter was
got enquired into Enquiry Officer
has since submitted the Enquiry
report. Keeping in view he
representation made by Shri Gulati
and with a view to give him full
opportunity to put up his defences,
it has been decided by me to get
the matter enquired afresh and
have appointed you as Enquiry
Officer. I forward herewith the
copies of the following documents
for your perusal and necessary
action.
1. Noted dated 29.4.94 issued by me
appointing you as Enquiry Officer.
2. Copy of Order dated 29.4.1994,
appointing Shri G.S Talwar as
Bank’s Representative.
3. Copy of Charge Sheet no.
DGM/DPS/159 dated 24/09/1991 issued
to Shri A.K.Gulati.
4. Time schedule of the enquiry.
5. Copy of letter no. DGM/DPS/
dated 29.4.1994 addressed to Shri
A.K.Gulati.
You are advised to commence the
enquiry on 26.5.1994 as mentioned
in the schedule of enquiry. You are
further advised to complete the
enquiry within the given schedule
by holding the same on day to day
basis without break. Please note
that your report must reach me
positively within the stipulated
period as detailed in the enclosed
time schedule.
Yours faithfully,
sd/-
(C.K. Mishra)
Notified Disciplinary Authority"
The respondent questioned the aforesaid proceeding, order dated April 29, 1994 by way of a writ petition [C.W. No.405 of 1995] in the Delhi High Court. Though several grounds were raised in the writ petitions the any question urged before the High Courts as it appears, from the order of the High Court was, from which stage of proceeding should the de novo enquiry commence. It would be appropriate to extract the order of the High Court in its entirety:
"This writ petition can be disposed
of at this stage as now the only
question addressed before us is as
to from what state of the
proceedings,.the de novo enquiry
should commence. A new enquiry
officer has been appointed vide
impugned order and impugned order
has ordered de novo enquiry which,
according to our views was not
Justified. The reason given for
holding fresh enquiry is that
petitioner’s grievance that he had
not been given proper opportunity
for defending his case by leading
documentary and oral evidence has
been accepted by the Department and
for affording reasonable
opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner for giving his full
defences de novo enquiry has been
ordered.
We are of the view that the
enquiry would not be from the very
beginning. The Department’s
evidence has already been completed
and some evidence of the petitioner
has also been recorded. The New
Enquiry Officer should now proceed
to give opportunity to the
petitioner to is documentary and
oral evidence and also consider the
question of recalling any witness
for further cross-examination
petitioner and then proceed to
decide the matter afresh.
The petitioner be given his
dues according, to the rules.
With the directions this writ
petition is disposed of. Parties
are left bear their own costs. The
application is also disposed of."
In this appeals it is contended by the appellant Bank that there is no warrant for the High Court to direct that the enquiry to be conducted hereinafter should be confined to the recording of the evidence to be adduced by the respondent alone. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that no reasons are given in support of the direction made by the High Court.
We are not prepared to agree. The High Court was given reasons for the direction it has given, in supersession of the orders of the notified disciplinary authority. We are unable to say that the view taken by the High Court is not a possible view. Acting under Article 136, we do not think it advisable to interfere with the order of the High Court, even if we find that another view of the matter is possible.
The appeal is dismissed accordingly. No costs.