BOARD OF DIRECTORS CUM APPELLATE AUTHORITY MANJEERA GRAMEENA BANK SANGAREDDY MEDAK DIST Vs. M ASHOK KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court whereby and whereunder the writ petition filed by the respondent herein was allowed on the ground that the disciplinary action taken by the appellants herein has been vitiated by reason of non-supply of enquiry officer's report. Facts:

(2.) The respondent was initially appointed as Scale-1 Officer in 1984 in the appellant-Bank. On 11.7.1987 he was issued a charge-sheet containing five charges. He was placed under suspension pending enquiry with effect from 31.7.1987. The Enquiry Officer who conducted an enquiry against the respondent submitted report holding that charges l(b) and 4 (b) are proved. Upon consideration of the report of the Enquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority by orders dated 1.2.1991 imposed the penalty of reduction to a lower stage in incremental scale from the stage as on the date of suspension i.e., from Rs.1620/- to the first stage i.e., Rs.1550/-. The period of suspension was treated as not spent on duty. The appellate authority rejected the appeal preferred by the respondent by order dated 7.9.1991. Assailing the orders of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority, the respondent filed the writ petition, inter alia, urging that he was not furnished with the report of the enquiry officer along with the show-cause notice for the proposed punishment and thus principles of natural justice were violated. Relying upon the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in WA No.1029 of 1999 wherein this Court had an occasion to deal with Regulation 30(2) of the Manjira Gramecna Bank Staff Service Regulations, 1983, which is also the subject- matter of dispute involved herein, the learned single Judge held that the respondent has been prejudiced by non-supply of the report of the Enquiry Officer and accordingly set aside the order of punishment as also the order of the appellate authority. It may be noticed herein that in WA No.1029 of 1999, this Court held that non-supply to the enquiry report and issuance of a show-cause notice proposing the punishment vitiated the enquiry as prejudice was inherent in the process and, therefore, the employee is entitled to the relief of invalidation of the penalty order. Submissions :

(3.) Mr.K. Srinivasamurthy, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants would submit that having regard to the decision of the Full Bench of this Court, it must be held that non-supply of a copy of the Enquiry Officer's report ipso facto does not prejudice the delinquent employee warranting invalidation of the disciplinary proceedings. In support of the same, Mr. Srinivasamurthy has relied upon the decisions of the Apex Court in EC1L v. Karunakar (supra), Addl, Dist. Magistrate (City) Agra v. Prahhakar Chatitrvedi, (1996) 2 SCC 12, S.K. Singh v. Central Bank of India, 1997 (1) LLJ 537, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Balakrishnan, 2001 (2) LLJ 444 = 2001 (89) FLR 865, Nickel Ranjan Bhoumik v. Tripura Grameena Bank, 2001 (2) LLJ 133, Union Bank of India v. Viswamohan (supra), Aligarh Muslim University v. Mansur Ali Khan, 2000 (7) SCC 529 and State Bank of Patiala v. S.K. Sharma (supra).