ANGELA JOHN S RAO Vs. N LAKSHMINARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this revision petition preferred by the plaintiff in the suit an employee of the State Bank of Hyderabad, the question that prominently comes to the fore is : whether an Enquiry Officer, in a domestic enquiry can suo motu summon a witness after the Management had declared that the evidence on behalf of the Management was closed.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this revision are these : The plaintiff-petitioner is an employee of the State Bank of Hyderabad. A domestic enquiry was initiated against her on charges of irregularities and misappropriation alleged to have been committed by her in the discharge of her duties. The defendant-respondent was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. The enquiry was concluded on 29th January, 1976. The Enquiry Officer gave time to the charged employee to file the statement of the case. The statement of the case dated 14th February, 1976 was filed by the charged employee on 16th February, 1976 before the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer was to give his findings. The case was reserved for recording the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Then, on 1st May, 1976 the employee received a notice from the Enquiry Officer asking her to be present on 12th May, 1976 for further enquiry and examination of one Smt. Subbalakshmi as a witness. In reply to the notice, the charged employee sent her objection. It was stated therein that the oral evidence on behalf of the Management was closed, that during the course of the proceedings on 19th November, 1975, the Management's representative stated that he did not propose to produce any further evidence and that the Management's case was concluded, that during the proceedings the Enquiry Officer had stated that the enquiry was concluded, that the procedure laid down for the enquiry did not clothe the Enquiry Officer with the powers for recording further evidence suo motu and that he was to give the findings on the evidence already recorded. On 4th June, 1976 the Enquiry Officer sent a notice to the charged employee informing her that there was no question of the enquiry having been closed or concluded before a finding was recorded in respect of the charges under enquiry and it was always open for him to seek and obtain necessary clarifications from her and also record further relevant evidence considered necessary to have a full and fair trial and to arrive at a correct conclusion in respect of the charges framed against her. She was further informed that if she failed to appear on 10th June, 1976, the matter would be proceeded with ex pane. The employee thereupon, filed the suit O.S.No.1412 of 1976 before the First Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad for a declaration that the proposal to conduct further enquiry and examine Smt. Subbalakshmi as a witness and seek certain clarifications from her in respect of the charges was illegal, improper and void and for a consequential injunction restraining the Enquiry Officer from holding any enquiry. She also filed I. A. No. 746 of 1976 for temporary injunction restraining the Enquiry Officer from proceeding further with the enquiry. The said I. A. was allowed. Aggrieved against the said order, the defendant filed C. M. A. No. 161 of 1976 before the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The learned Chief Judge, holding that the plaintiff failed to make out a prima facie case and that the suit itself was not maintainable, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of the lower Court granting temporary injunction. The plaintiff-employee has, therefore, preferred this revision petition.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the procedure adopted by the Enquiry Officer in the case is basically intended to victimise the employee and fills up the lacuna in the evidence and that it is against the rules of conducting a domsetic enquiry and, therefore, illegal.