9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (8) TMI 594X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed under suspension. Six charges were framed against Misra while the charge sheet served on Goel Contained seven charges. The disciplinary authority did not conduct the inquiry itself an inquiry officer was appointed to hold the inquiry. The inquiry officer gave the respondent opportunity of being hear. In his report submitted in connection with the inquiry against Misra, he found him guilty only of one charge, namely, that he did not sign the relevant register from 20th October, 1981 to 9th November, 1981 but exonerated him of charges two to six. as far as Goel is concerned the inquiry officer, in his report, found him not guilty of any of the charges and exonerated him. On the receipt of the reports from the inquiry officer the disciplinary authority, namely, the Regional Manager of appellant bank, to whom the reports were submitted, did not agree, in the case of Misra, with the findings of the inquiry officer in respect of charges two to six and by a short order dated 12th December, 1983 passed an order holding that it was an undisputed position that Misra being Assistant Manager was in the joint custody of the keys of the currency chest and he had personal responsibility towar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the respondents placed reliance on two other Two-Judge Bench decision of this Court in Institute of Chartered Accountants of India Vs. L. K. Ratna and Ors. [(1986) 4 SCC 537] and Ram Kishan Vs. Union of India and Ors. [(1995) 6 SCC 157]. Both the sides also referred to the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in managing Director ECIL, Hyderabad and Ors. Vs. B. Karunakar and Ors. [(1993) 4 SCC 727] and each of them sought to place reliance on them. In view of the apparent conflict in the decisions in the first three cases by order dated 30th October, 1996 the case was referred to be heard by a large bench. We, therefore, propose to deal with the point in issue and resolve the apparent conflict. The only contention urged by Sh. V. R. Reddy, learned senior counsel for the appellant, was that Punjab National Bank Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations 1977 [for short 'the Regulations'] did not require an of opportunity of being heard being given to the delinquent officer when the disciplinary authority disagreed with the findings of the inquiring authority once the inquiring authority had given a hearing to them. It was further submitted by the learned c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... isciplinary Authority itself holds the inquiry any reference in sub regulation (8) to sub regulation (21) to the inquiring authority shall be construed as a reference to Disciplinary Authority. (3) Where it is proposed to hold an inquiry, the disciplinary Authority shall frame definite and distinct charges on the basis of the allegations against the officer employee and the articles of charge, together with a statement of the allegations, on which they are based, shall be communicated in writing to the officer employee who shall be required to submit within such time as may be specified by the Disciplinary Authority (not exceeding 15 days), or within such extended time as may be granted by the said Authority, a written statement of his defence. (4) on receipt of the written statement of the officer employee, or if no such statement is received within the time specified, an enquiry may be held by the Disciplinary Authority itself, or if it considers it necessary so to do appoint under Sub-regulation (2) an inquiring Authority for the purpose. Provided that it may not be necessary to hold an inquiry in respect of the articles of charge admitted by the officer employee in his writt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n such charge, if the evidence n record is sufficient for the purpose. (3) If the Disciplinary Authority, having regard to its findings on all or any of the articles of charge, is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in Regulation 4 should be imposed on the officer employee it shall, notwithstanding anything imposing in regulation 8, make an order imposing such penalty. (4) If the Disciplinary Authority having regard to its findings on all or any o the articles of charge, is of the opinion that no penalty is called for, it may pass an order exonerating the officer employee concerned. A bare reading of the above regulations shows that on furnishing of the charge sheet full opportunity is required to be given to the delinquent officer to prove his innocence. This is a case where the disciplinary authority decided that procedure contained in Regulation 6 be followed. Under Regulation - 6 (2) the Disciplinary Authority, instead of conducting the inquiry itself, chose to appoint another person as the "Inquiring Authority' to inquire into the imputations of misconduct. On the conclusion of the proceedings in the manner provided by Regulation 6, the inquiring authorit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n to him to appoint an inquiry officer to conduct the inquiry and place the entire record before hm with or without his findings. But in either case, the final decision is to be taken by him on the basis of the material adduced. This also appears to be the view taken by one of us (B.P. Jeevan Reddy, J) as a Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Mahendra Kumar V. Union of India. The second contention accordingly stands rejected." Reliance was also placed on M. C. Saxena's case (supra). In this case also the disciplinary authority disagreed with the findings of the inquiry officer and the after recording reasons in this regard it held that the charges against the delinquent officer stood established. In coming to this conclusion it was observed that while disagreeing the only requirement was that the disciplinary authority should record reasons for disagreement and it was not necessary in such a case for the delinquent government servant to be afforded a further opportunity of hearing. Sh. Sunil Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent, drew our attention to the decision in the case of Institute of chartered Accountant of India (supra). The respondent therein, who was a cha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n heard. He is clearly entitled to an opportunity of hearing before the council finds him guilty of misconduct." In Ram Kishan's case (supra) disciplinary proceedings on two charges were initiated against Ram Kishan. The inquiry officer in his report found the first charge not proved and the second charge was partly proved. The disciplinary authority disagreed with the conclusion reached by the inquiry officer and a show cause was issued as to why both the charges should not be taken to have been proved. While dealing with the contention that the disciplinary authority had not given any reason in the show cause to disagree with the conclusions reached by the inquiry officer an that, therefore, the findings based on that show cause notice was bad in law, a Two-Judge Bench at page 161 observed as follows: " ... The purpose of the show-cause notice, in case of disagreement with the findings of the inquiry officer, is to enable the delinquent to show that the disciplinary authority is persuaded not to disagree with the conclusions reached by the inquiry officer for the reasons given in the inquiry report of he may offer additional reasons in support of the findings by the inquiry ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll the said findings in their entirety, it is another matter: but if the dismissing authority accepts the findings recorded against the delinquent officer and differs from some or all of those recorded in his favour and proceeds to specify the nature of the action proposed to be taken on it own conclusions, it would be necessary that the said conclusions should be briefly indicated in the notice. In this category of case, the action proposed to be taken could be based not only on the findings recorded against the delinquent officer in the enquiry report, but also on the view of the dismissing authority that the other charges not held proved by the enquiring officer, are according to the dismissing authority, proved. In order to give the delinquent officer a reasonable opportunity to show cause under Article 311(2), it is essential that the conclusions provisionally reached by the dismissing authority must, in such cases, be specified in the notice. But whether the dismissing authority purports to proceed to issue the notice against the delinquent officer after accepting the enquiry report in its entirety, it cannot be said that it is essential that the dismissing authority must say ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... receive the report of the inquiry officer was an essential part of the first stage itself. This was expressed by the Court in the following words: " The reason why the right to receive the report of the enquiry officer is considered an essential part of the reasonable opportunity at the first stage and also a principle of natural justice is that the findings recorded by the enquiry officer form an important material before the disciplinary authority which along with the evidence is taken into consideration by it to come to its conclusions. It is difficult to say in advance, to what extent the said findings including the punishment, if any, recommended in the report would influence the disciplinary authority while drawing its conclusions. the findings further might have been recorded without considering the relevant evidence on record, or by misconstruing it or unsupported by it. If such a finding is to be one of the documents to be considered by the disciplinary authority, the principles of natural justice require that the employee should have a fair opportunity to meet, explain and controvert it before he is condemned. It is negation of the tenants of justice and a denial of fair ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the finding in favour of the delinquent officers is proposed to be over-turned by the disciplinary authority then no opportunity should be granted. The first stage of the inquiry is not completed till the disciplinary authority has recorded its findings. The principles of natural justice would demand that the authority which proposes to decide against the delinquent officer must give him a hearing. When the inquiring officer holds the charges to be proved then that report has to be given to the delinquent officer who can make a representation before the disciplinary authority takes further action which may be prejudicial to the delinquent officer. When, like in the present case, the inquiry report is in favour of the delinquent officer but the disciplinary authority proposes to differ with such conclusions then that authority which is deciding against the delinquent officer must give him an opportunity of being heard for otherwise he would be condemned unheard. In departmental proceedings what is of ultimate importance is the findings of the disciplinary authority. Under Regulation - 6 the inquiry proceedings can be conducted either by an inquiry officer or by the disciplinary au ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
