MOHINDER SINGH Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner who was working as Manager with the erstwhile New bank of India was served with a charge-sheet dated February 25, 1991 in which it was alleged that he acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the Bank and that he failed to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty, devotion and diligence. It was further alleged that he failed to ensure and protect the interest of the Bank and acted in a manner unbecoming of an officer. The details of the imputations of misconduct were also served on the petitioner. A regular departmental inquiry was conducted in which petitioner and the Presenting Officer both led evidence. The Enquiry Officer after hearing the parties gave his report holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner stood proved. A copy of the inquiry report was sent to the petitioner and he filed his objections thereto. The Deputy General Manager who was the disciplinary authority considered the inquiry report along with the record and came to the conclusion that the Enquiry Officer had not evaluated/analysed the evidence produced by the Presenting Officer nor had he considered the documents placed on the record. He, therefore, remitted the entire record of the inquiry to the Inquiry Officer with a direction to submit a fresh inquiry report in triplicate strictly in terms of regulation 6(21) (i) of the New Bank of India Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1982. It may be mentioned that clause 21 of rule 6 requires that the report of the inquiring authority shall amongst other things contain an assessment of the evidence in respect of each article of charge. Since the Enquiry Officer had not considered the evidence in his report, the case was sent back to him. After remand the Enquiry Officer submitted a fresh inquiry report which was considered by the disciplinary authority and was accepted. The charges levelled against the petitioner were held proved. In the meantime, the New Bank of India was amalgamated with the Punjab National Bank as per notification dated September 4, 1993 and the disciplinary action against the petitioner was continued by the competent authority in terms of the Punjab National Bank Officer Employees (D&A) Regulations, 1977 (for short the Regulations). The disciplinary authority after examining the inquiry report in detail and also the objections filed by the petitioner concurred with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and held the petitioner guilty of the lapses which had caused huge financial loss to the Bank. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner was found guilty of serious lapses, he was dismissed from service in terms of Regulation 4 of the Regulations.

(2.) Feeling aggrieved against the order of dismissal, the petitioner filed an appeal before the General Manager who did not find any merit in it and dismissed the same. The inquiry report, the order of dismissal and the Appellate order have been challenged by the petitioner in this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution.

(3.) The only contention raised by Mr. Arora, learned counsel for the petitioner, is that after the disciplinary authority had remanded the case back to the Enquiry Officer for a fresh inquiry report, the latter did not afford any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thus violated the principles of natural justice. It is common case of the parties that the Enquiry Officer while submitting a fresh inquiry report in terms of the directions of the disciplinary authority did not afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Mr. Nijjar appearing for the respondent-Bank, on the other hand, urged that it was not necessary for the Enquiry Officer to hear the petitioner again as the Enquiry Officer was only required to record his reasons and reassess the evidence in support of the conclusion already arrived at. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties, we are of the view that the writ petition deserves to be allowed. The inquiry file was remitted back to the Enquiry Officer for submitting a fresh inquiry report after assessing the evidence as was the requirement of Regulation 6(21)(i of the Regulations. Obviously when the Enquiry Officer was to assess the evidence and give a fresh report, it was possible for him to have come to a conclusion different from the one taken by him earlier while submitting his report. It was, therefore, necessary for him to have heard the petitioner in this regard before submitting his fresh report. Not having done so, he clearly acted in disregard of the principles of natural justice.