9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (4) TMI 548X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a Officers Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976, (for short the Regulations ) 2. The respondent was initially recruited in the service of the Bank as a Clerk. Incidentally, it may be stated that in 1974, an inquiry was conducted in regard to certain acts of misconduct and irregularities committed by him and upon such findings by the Inquiry Officer, he was dismissed from service, but, however, on his representations, he was reinstated on humanitarian grounds in 1982 pursuant to the order passed by the Managing Director. 3. On reinstatement, the respondent came within the zone of consideration for promotion. He accordingly participated in the promotion process held in 1982-83 and was empanelled in 1984 for promotion. H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the disciplinary Authority. 5. The Disciplinary Authority after considering the report by its order dated 7th January, 1991 warded the punishment of dismissal of the respondent from the service. This order was unsuccessfully challenged in the Writ Petition and the same was dismissed on 21st March, 1991 on the ground that the respondent had not availed the alternate remedy of appeal as provided under Regulation 17. the respondent thereafter preferred an appeal under Regulation 17 to the Appellate Authority which after considering it on merits dismissed the same vide it s order dated 30th may 1991. The respondent aggrieved b the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority filed a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e report was not furnished to the respondent until the Disciplinary Authority passed the order of dismissal on 7th January, 1991. But, however, the said copy appears to have been served on the respondent when he filed the statutory representation/appeal under the Regulations before the Appellate Authority. 8. On perusal of appeal and the writ petition memos, it is quite clear that the respondent had challenged the inquiry report/findings on merits. In fact, he annexed the copy of the report/findings as Annexure XVI to the said petition. In paragraph 62, he had assailed the findings of the Inquiry Authority and sought to project that he is totally innocent and none of the charges could be sustained on the material produced before the Inqu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epresentation to the Disciplinary Authority; and in that event the Disciplinary Authority would not have been influenced by the grave charges as stated in the first charge sheet. While dealing with these contentions, the High Court observed:- It is not shown in what circumstances the charges under the first charge sheet have been considered . All these questions deserved to be considered. If the disciplinary authority comes to the conclusion that the charges stated in the first charge sheet, cannot be the basis of the proceedings, then the question would be whether the charges as stated in the subsequent three charge sheets warrant the same punishment which is awarded on the charges of all the four charge sheets. The High Court the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udiced him. 9. We are totally in disagreement with the above quoted reasoning of the High Court. The distinction sought to be drawn by the High Court that the first charge sheet served on the respondent related to the period when he was a clerk whereas other three charge sheets related to the period when he was promoted as a bank officer. In the present case, we are required to see the findings of the Inquiry Authority, the order of the Disciplinary Authority as well as the order of the Appellate Authority since the High Court felt that the charges levelled against the respondent after he was promoted as an officer were not of serious nature. A bare look at these charges would unmistakably indicate that they relate to the misconduct o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the statutory appeal as well as the writ petition in the High Court. The High Court was required to apply its judicial mind to all the circumstances and then form its opinion whether non-furnishing of the report would have made any difference to the result in the case and thereupon pass an appropriate order. In paragraph 13, this Court in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and others (supra) has very rightly cautioned: The Court/Tribunal should not mechanically set aside the order of punishment on the ground that the report was not furnished as is regrettably being done at present. The courts should avoid resorting to short cuts. In our considered view, the High Court has failed to apply its judicial mind to the facts and circums ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
