RAM SHANKER RAI Vs. ADMINISTRATIVE COMMITTEE COOPERATIVE BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INSTANT writ petition has been preferred against the impugned order of punishment awarded in pursuance to the regular departmental enquiry. A charge -sheet dated 27.8.2001 was served on the petitioner containing certain charges, in response to which, the petitioner sought certain documents which he was not provided; rather he was asked to inspect the records. The submission of the petitioner is that due to non -supply of relevant documents, he could not submit effective reply to the charge -sheet. A show cause notice dated 14.2.2002 was served on the petitioner requiring him to submit a reply to it. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 18.4.2002 denying the charges levelled against him. He submitted that the enquiry officer has not held any enquiry. No date, time and place was fixed nor copy of the enquiry report was served. However, instead of considering the petitioner's objection in letter and spirit in view of the law settled by this Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court, the petitioner has been punished by the impugned order of dismissal from service. Feeling aggrieved, present writ petition has been preferred.

(2.) IN paragraphs 46 and 48 of the writ petition, it has been categorically held that the enquiry officer has not recorded any oral evidence to substantiate the charges. Copy of the relevant documents is not provided. For convenience, paras 46 and 48 of the writ petition are reproduced as under:

(3.) NOW , it is well settled principle of law that while holding regular enquiry, it shall always be incumbent on the enquiry officer to record evidence to substantiate the charges and in case the delinquent employee does not cooperative, then the enquiry officer may proceed ex parte. Departmental enquiry means after service of charge -sheet, opportunity should be given not only to submit reply to the charge -sheet but all relevant documents should be substantiated by oral evidence with opportunity to the delinquent employee to cross -examine the witnesses. Thereafter, opportunity should be given to lead evidence in defence coupled with opportunity of personal hearing. In any case, in the event of non -cooperation by the petitioner, evidence should be recorded by ex parte proceeding before submitting enquiry report. Noncompliance of these procedures amounts to violation of principle of natural justice and invalidate the enquiry proceedings vide JT : 2010 (1) SC 618, State of U.P. and others v. Saroj Kumar Sinha;, 1990 LCD 486, Jagdish Prasad Singh v. State of U.P.;, 1998 LCD 199, Avatar Singh v. State of U.P.; : (1979) 1 SCC 60, Town Area Committee, Jalalabad v. Jagdish Prasad; : (1980) 3 SCC 459, Managing Director, U.P. Welfare Housing Corporation v. Vijay Narain Bajpai; : 1998 (6) SCC 651, State of U.P. v. Shatrughan Lal; 1998 SC 117, Chandrama Tewari v. Union of India and others; : 1985 SC 1121, Anil Kumar v. Presiding Officer and others; : (2009) 2 SCC 570, Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank and others and : (2010) 2 SCC 772, State of U.P. and others v. Saroj Kumar Sinha.