JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner has challenged the orders dated the 3rd February, 1984 (Ann-2) and the 30th August, 1984 (Ann. 4). Vide order dated 3rd February, 1984, penalty of removal from the service of the Bank in terms of Regulation 67(g) of the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979, has been imposed upon the petitioner for the charge levelled against him for abusing official position, displaying lack of absolute integrity and honesty, while he was functioning as Branch Manager at the Bank's Chhoti Sadri Branch during the year 1980-81. 2. The act alleged under the charge framed vide memo dated the 30th September, 1982, was that the petitioner pocketed a sum of र 324.85 by falsely showing the payment of Banker's Cheque No. Ao/576823 dated 29.10.1980 to one Shri Radhey Shyam which was originally issued in the name of Shri Anandilal by subsequently substituting the name of Shri Radhey Shyam therein. According to the charge Sheet, the petitioner by his aforesaid acts, abused his official position, displayed lack of absolute integrity and honesty and committed acts which are unbecoming of a Bank official thereby violating the Regulation No. 50(4) of the aforesaid Service Regulations. As per the statement of imputations of misconduct in support of the charge framed against the petitioner, one Shri Anandilal had allegedly worked as badli watchman for 20 days at Bank's branch in October, 1980; the aforesaid Banker's cheque was issued for र 324.25 favouring Shri Anandilal after making entry in the books of the Branch and entering his name in the Branch Salary Register. The allegation is that the petitioner subsequently substituted name of Radhey Shyam in place of Anandilal in both the salary register as well as the aforesaid Banker's cheque, and he handed over on 3rd January, 1981 the said cheque. which bore signatures of Radhey Shyam at two places on its reverse to Samarth Lal Teli, acting Head Cashier, and himself received the amount and pocketed the same. 3. Thereupon an oral enquiry was held in which the presenting officer of the Bank presented in as many as 16 documents referred to in the inquiry report dated the 31st December, 1983, and witnesses, namely, V. C. Jain, Ashok Hanswal, Samrth Mal Teli, Anandilal, N. R. Choudhary Inspector CBI, SPE, Jaipur, and O. P. Nagori, were produced by the Bank. No defence witness has been produced by the petitioner. No defence witness has been produced by the petitioner. The petitioner presented his written statement dated 26.12.1983 stating therein as under:- "This has a reference to the enquiry proceedings dated the 22nd December, 1983 held at Chhoti Sadri in the above case against me. I have to submit that Shri Radhey Shyam had worked as Badli watchman from time to time. He had marked his attendance in the watch and ward register for the days he had performed his duties. After working for some days in the month of October, 1980, Shri Radhey Shyam left the bank's service. However, before the salary was prepared, he (Radhey Shyam) had sent a letter requesting for paying his salary to one Shri Anandilal. The clerk had prepared the salary in the name of Shri Anandilal. When this came to my notice at the time of checking, the name in the salary register was corrected as Radhey Shyam. When Shri Radhey Shyam again joined the duty in January, 1981, the payment of the cheque was made to him by obtaining a suitable letter from him and after making the necessary corrections in the cheque. I have to further submit that Shri Nagori had never demanded from me the letter of authority of Shri Radhey Shyam in favour of Shri Anandilal, nor he had asked me anything about missing of certain pages of the relative watch and ward register. The payment of the cheque in question was not taken by me. I again deny the bank's charge of pocketing र 324.85." The inquiry authority after discussing the material on record and its analysis, in its report dated 31.12.1983, found the charge levelled against the petitioner as proved. This inquiry report was considered by the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority recommended that the penalty of removal from Bank's service be imposed upon the petitioner and thereby, the matter was placed before the Managing Director for according his approval. The managing Director vide order dated the 3rd February, 1984 accorded approval to the recommendations of the disciplinary authority for imposing penalty of removal against the petitioner. Accordingly an order imposing upon the petitioner penalty of removal from Bank's service, was issued on February 3, 1984 vide Annexure 2, against which the petitioner went in appeal but the same also failed, as communicated vide letter/order dated the 24th August, 1984. Hence this writ petition. 4. Accordingly an order imposing upon the petitioner penalty of removal from Bank's service, was issued on February 3, 1984 vide Annexure 2, against which the petitioner went in appeal but the same also failed, as communicated vide letter/order dated the 24th August, 1984. Hence this writ petition. 4. First contention on behalf of the petitioner is that the Bank has denied proper opportunity to him to defend himself during inquiry proceedings by refusing supply of defence documents and thus it has resulted in violation of Regulation 68-X(b)(iii) of the Bank's Service Regulation. According to the petitioner, he had requested the inquiry officer by his letter dated the 8th April, 1983 to furnish seven documents including report of preliminary investigation conducted by Shri O. P. Nagori besides statements of the petitioner & other persons, but they were not furnished to him rather, the inquiring authority rejected his request to supply these documents at the instance of Bank's representative on the ground that they were not relevant. Therefore, another representation was also made on 9th July, 1983 to the Disciplinary authority which vide letter dated the 4th October, 1983 directed the petitioner to request the inquiry officer. 5. As against this, my attention was drawn by the learned counsel for the Bank to the inquiry proceedings. As per the inquiry proceedings drawn on 29.4.1983, the defence representative was asked whether he has received copies of all the documents and copies of the statements of witnesses to which he replied that they have so far not received a copy of the statement of Shri A. M. Kothari (petitioner) as recorded by Shri O. P. Nagori as also the preliminary investigation report of the later, and copies of the statements of the Bank's witnesses as recorded by the C. B. I. have been received by him only on the 27th at Jaipur, hence it does not meet the requirement of regulation 68(2)(X) (b) (iii) of the SBBJ (Officers) Service Regulation, 1979. Then it has been observed as under:- "The defence also wanted to compare and check these copies with the originals as recorded by the C. B. I. The Bank representative was asked to get the copies of statements of witnesses compared with the original recorded by the CBI today. Then it has been observed as under:- "The defence also wanted to compare and check these copies with the originals as recorded by the C. B. I. The Bank representative was asked to get the copies of statements of witnesses compared with the original recorded by the CBI today. The defence representative confessed that he has compared the statements of witnesses with the originals".In the inquiry proceedings drawn on 7.7.1983, it has been observed as under:- "The defence representative submitted that in the inquiry proceedings held on the 29th April, 1983 he had demanded a copy of the statement of Shri A. M. Kothari recorded by Shri O. P. Nagori and also the preliminary investigation report of the later alongwith its enclosures but the same have not yet been supplied. It is therefore again requested to kindly supply the same. "When the Bank's presenting officer was asked for the copy of the investigation report of Shri O. P. Nagori, he said that this is a privilege document and it cannot be supplied. So far the statements of Shri A. M. Kothari are concerned, the same must be available with him (Shri A. M. Kothari). The defence representative submitted that the presenting officer has not assigned grounds for claiming privilege for not furnishing the copy of the documents (investigation report of Shri O. P. Nagori). Hence his plea has no force and therefore, we (he) should be furnished with the copy of the same. The presenting officer submitted that under regulation 68(2)(xii) of SBBJ Officers' Service Regulation, 1979, this is a privilege document. After hearing the arguments of both the sides the inquiry authority give the ruling that neither the investigation report of Shri O. P. Nagori nor the statements of Shri A. M. Kothari (if recorded therein) have been relied upon and as such there is no relevance in producing the same." In inquiry proceedings drawn on 8.7.1983, the presenting officer submitted that the investigation report of Shri Nagori has not been relied upon as a document in the present inquiry and that it is not always possible to examine the Bank's witnesses according to the convenience of defence. It has also been submitted by the presenting officer on 8.7.1983 that this inquiry was held on the basis of investigation conducted by C. B. I. and in the list of witnesses submitted by the Bank, Shri Nagori's name is at serial No. 1. 6. Let me have a brief resume as to what are the provisions as to discipline rules applicable to respondent Bank's Officers. Regulation 67 of the State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur (Officers') Service Regulations, 1979 (for brevity, 'the Service Regulations') contemplates as to what are minor and major penalties. Minor penalties are defined under sub-regulations (a) to (d) of Regulation 67, - (a) Censure; (b) Withholding of increments of pay with or without cumulative effect; (c) withholding of promotion; (d) recovery from pay or such other amount as may be due to him of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Bank of negligence or breach of orders. Major penalties are defined under sub-regulations (e) to (h) of Regulation 67, (e) reduction to a lower grade or post, or to a lower stage in a time scale; (f) compulsory retirement; (g) removal from service; (h) dismissal. 7. Procedures to be followed by the Disciplinary authority or the inquiring authority during inquiry proceedings are prescribed in sub-regulation (x) to (xxi) of Regulation 68(2) of the Service Regulations. Under Sub-regulation (x) (a), in case the officer does not admit all or any of the charges, the inquiring authority is required to furnish to the delinquent officer a list of documents by which, and a list of witnesses by whom, the charges are proposed to be proved. This procedure has been followed in as much as the petitioner has not raised any grievance to it. 8. As per sub-regulation (2) (x) (b) of Regulation 68, the inquiring authority shall also record an order that the delinquent officer for the purpose of preparing his defence : I. inspect and take notes of the documents listed. II. submit a list of documents and witnesses that he wants for enquiry; III. be supplied with copies of statements of witnesses if any, recorded earlier and the inquiring authority shall furnish such copies not later than three days before the commencement of the examination of the witnesses by the inquiring authority. IV. II. submit a list of documents and witnesses that he wants for enquiry; III. be supplied with copies of statements of witnesses if any, recorded earlier and the inquiring authority shall furnish such copies not later than three days before the commencement of the examination of the witnesses by the inquiring authority. IV. give a notice within ten days of the order or within such further time not exceeding ten days as the inquiring authority may allow, for the discovery or production of the documents referred to at (II) above. Under note to sub regulation (2Xx)(b) Ito IV, the relevancy of the documents and the examination of the witnesses referred to at (II) above has to be given by the delinquent officer. 9. In this view of the specific provisions contained in sub-regulation (2)(x)(b), it is obligatory on the part of the,inquiring authority to also record an order affording the delinquent officer an opportunity to do the things envisaged in Ito IV, quoted above, in/for his defence. 10. In the case of the present petitioner, as I find from the proceedings of inquiry drawn/recorded by the inquiring authority (enclosed with the writ petition), no such order as provided under sub-regulation (x) (b) has been recorded by the inquiry authority. 11. However, it has not been disputed by the petitioner that he has inspected and took notes of the documents listed. But, his grievance is that despite his submission of list of documents that he wanted for enquiry so as to prepare his defence, in compliance of his right conferred under sub-regulation (2) (x)(b)(1I), he was not supplied with copies of the documents and statements of witnesses, if any recorded earlier, as required by him in his application dated 8.4.1983 (Ann. 5) followed by another letter of request dated 9.7.1983 (Ann.6) stating therein relevancy of those documents, namely, statements of different persons including that of the petitioner, himself, recorded by Shri 0. P. Nagori (one of enlisted witness of the Bank) during preliminary investigation conducted by latter, and his report. 12. From the proceedings of inquiry, quorted above, it is clear that the following documents were not supplied to the petitioner, (1) Statement of they petitioner recorded by Shri O. P. Nagori during preliminary investigation. (2) Preliminary investigation report prepared by Shri O. P. Nagori, alongwith its enclosures. 12. From the proceedings of inquiry, quorted above, it is clear that the following documents were not supplied to the petitioner, (1) Statement of they petitioner recorded by Shri O. P. Nagori during preliminary investigation. (2) Preliminary investigation report prepared by Shri O. P. Nagori, alongwith its enclosures. As regards, non-supply of the said documents including preliminary investigation report, the inquiring authority after hearing arguments of both the sides declined to order for supply of the report by holding /ruling that neither the investigation report of Shri O. P. Nagori nor the statements of the petitioner (if recorded) have been relied upon and as such there is no relevance in producing the same. 13. In my considered view, the procedure adopted by the inquiring authority while declining to supply the documents demanded by the petitioner, was totally violative of the regulation 68(2)(x)(b)(I) to (IV), as sub-regulation (2)(x)(b)(III) specifically provides that the inquiry authority shall record an order that the delinquent officer be supplied with copies. of statements of witnesses, if any, recorded earlier. This sub-regulation does not confer any right on the inquiry authority to decline to the supply of the statements of witnesses recorded earlier. In the present case, it is admitted position that the preliminary investigation was conducted by Shri O. P. Nagori who had also admittedly recorded statement of the petitioner as well as other villages and bank clerks and who himself has appeared as Bank's witness before the inquiry authority. So, further in my view, irrespective of the fact whether the documents demanded by the petitioner were relied on or not, by the presenting officer of the Bank, the material collected during preliminary investigation conducted by Shri O. P. Nagori at the instructions of the Bank-disciplinary authority, itself, were very much relevant for the purpose of delinquent's (petitioner's) defence. 14. Moreover, regulation 68(2)(x)(b) imposes an obligation upon the inquiring authority to order that the petitioner should be supplied with copies of statements of witnesses if any recorded earlier. The inquiring authority also departed from the statutory procedure such as, it did not record any order as envisaged under regulation 68(2)(x)(b) providing him opportunity as contemplated in clauses I to IV of sub-regulation 68(2)(x)(b). The inquiring authority did not give any requisition notice as provided under sub-regulation (2)(x)(b)(IV)/ & (xi) & (xii) for the discovery or production of the documents referred to at (II). 15. The inquiring authority did not give any requisition notice as provided under sub-regulation (2)(x)(b)(IV)/ & (xi) & (xii) for the discovery or production of the documents referred to at (II). 15. Sub-regulation (2)(xi), (xii) of Regulation 68 of the Service Regulations are reproduced as under : "(xi) The inquiring authority shall, on receipt of the notice for the discovery or production of the documents, forward the same or copies thereof to the authority in whose custody or possession the documents are kept, with a requisition for the production of the documents on such date as may be specified. (xii) On receipt of the requisition under clause (xi), the authority having custody or possession of the requisitioned documents shall arrange to produce the same before the Inquiring Authority on the date, place and time specified in the requisition. Provided that authority having custody or possession of the requisitioned documents may claim privilege if the production of such documents will be against the public interest or the interest of the Bank. In that event, it shall inform the inquiring authority accordingly." 16. Since no order by the inquiring authority as contemplated under sub-regulation (2)(x)(b) of Regulations 68, has been passed for preparation of the defence so as to afford the petitioner an opportunity as envisaged under sub-clause I to IV of sub- regulation (2)(x)(b), the inquiring authority did also not send requisition to the authority in whose custody or possession the documents are kept for the production of the documents demanded by the petitioner. The inquiring authority has directed the presenting officer of the Bank who cannot be said to have been the authority having custody or possession of the investigation report of Shri O. P. Nagori, and the statements of the witnesses recorded by Shri O. P. Nagori. Only the disciplinary authority in the facts of the case is/was the authority having custody of these documents. Thus, merely because, the inquiring authority asked the presenting officer for production of the same, does not establish that compliance has been made as contemplated in sub-regulation (2)(x)(b) Ito IV or (2)(xi) and/or (2) (xii). 17. Only the disciplinary authority in the facts of the case is/was the authority having custody of these documents. Thus, merely because, the inquiring authority asked the presenting officer for production of the same, does not establish that compliance has been made as contemplated in sub-regulation (2)(x)(b) Ito IV or (2)(xi) and/or (2) (xii). 17. Under proviso to sub-regulation (2) (xii) of Regulation 68, the authority having custody of the aforesaid documents demanded by the delinquent may refuse to it and may claim privilege but the proviso lays down a mandatory requirement for recording reasons in writing showing how the documents are privileged and how the production of such documents would be against the public interest or the interest of the Bank. The proceedings of inquiry quoted above of 7th July, 1983 show that the presenting officer when asked by the inquiring authority for the copy of the investigation report of Shri O. P. Nagori, he merely said that this is a privilege document and it cannot be supplied. That apart, in letter dated the 4th October, 1983, (Ex. 7), the General Manager as directed by the Managing Director of the Bank stated as under : "(i) The Bank has not relied upon the report of Shri O. P. Nagori and hence this document has no relevance to the enquiry proceedings initiated against you; and (ii) Since the enquiry is in progress, there is no rule or provision for approaching by a delinquent official to the Disciplinary authority in the matters of rulings given by the inquiring authority. You may, therefore, request the Inquiring authority for production of documents, etc. and convince him about their relevance to your defence." Sd/- (General Manager) (Planning & Development)" 18. According to para (i), ibid, the Bank refused to supply on the grounds that the Bank has not relied upon the report of Shri O. P. Nagori and it had no relevance to the enquiry proceedings. In this view of the matter, it can be said that the Bank, i.e. the disciplinary authority has not claimed privilege as conferred under the proviso to sub-regulation (2)(xii) of Regulation 68, being the authority having custody of the documents in question. 19. The extracts quoted above leave no room for doubt that the disciplinary authority refused to furnish to the petitioner copies of documents & copies of statements, asked for by the petitioner. 19. The extracts quoted above leave no room for doubt that the disciplinary authority refused to furnish to the petitioner copies of documents & copies of statements, asked for by the petitioner. When a Government servant is facing a proceeding initiated by the disciplinary authority he is entitled to be afforded a reasonable opportunity to meet the charges against him in an effective manner. And no one facing a departmental enquiry can effectively meet the charges unless the copies of the relevant statements and documents to be used against him are made available to him. In the absence of such copies, how can the concerned employee like the petitioner prepare his defence, cross-examine the witnesses and point out the inconsistencies with a view to show that the allegations are incredible? 20. It is difficult to comprehend why the disciplinary authority assumed an intransigent posture and refused to furnish the copies notwithstanding the specific request made by the petitioner in this behalf so as to avail of rightful opportunity as conferred by regulations, quoted above. Perhaps the disciplinary authority made it a prestige issue. If only the disciplinary authority had asked itself the question : 'What is the harm in making available the material ?' and weighed the pros and cons, the disciplinary authority could not reasonably have adopted such a rigid and adamant attitude. On the one hand there was the risk of the time and effort invested in the departmental enquiry being wasted if the courts came to the conclusion that failure to supply these materials would tantamount to denial of reasonable opportunity to the appellant to defend himself. On the other hand, by making available the copies of the documents and statements that the petitioner wanted for the defence during the inquiry, the disciplinary authority was not running any risk. There was nothing confidential or privileged in it. It is not even the case of the respondent Bank that there was involved any consideration of security of the Bank or privilege or the production thereof would have been against the public interest or the interest of the Bank. No doubt the disciplinary authority gave an opportunity to the petitioner to inspect the documents and take notes as mentioned earlier which were relied upon by the Bank. No doubt the disciplinary authority gave an opportunity to the petitioner to inspect the documents and take notes as mentioned earlier which were relied upon by the Bank. But, even clause III of sub-regulation (2)(x)(b) imposes an obligation, as detailed out above, on the inquiring authority to record an order that the delinquent may be supplied with copies of statements of witnesses, if any recorded earlier, for the purpose of preparing his defence. 21. It is trite that a delinquent is entitled to two types of documents, one relied by the prosecution and the other asked for by him for his defence. More so, as said earlier, the investigation report of Shri 0. P. Nagori and statement of the witnesses recorded by Shri Nagori were asked for by the petitioner for his defence and they were relevant for him not only for preparation of his written statement in defence but also so as to cross-examine the witnesses produced by the Bank and with a view to point out the inconsistencies and to show that the allegations are incredible. Admittedly, the Bank has produced Shri 0. P. Nagori and other witnesses whose statements were recorded by Shri Nagori earlier during preliminary investigation conducted by him at the instruction of the Bank. In these circumstances, these documents which were refused and were not supplied to the petitioner by the Bank, the disciplinary authority, were very much relevant for the defence of the petitioner during inquiry against him. 22. As held above, the Bank-disciplinary authority, in whose custody these documents were, has never claimed them as privileged ones, nor the presenting officer said how their production was/is against the public interest or the interest of the Bank. In the reply to the writ petition, there is a simple denial of the allegation (made by the petitioner in his writ petition), without producing any material to show to the contrary. The Bank has not been able to satisfy me that no prejudice was occasioned to the petitioner. 23. Be that as it may, even without going into minute details, it is evident that the petitioner was entitled to have an access to the documents and statements as asked for by him, during the and throughout the course of the inquiry. The Bank has not been able to satisfy me that no prejudice was occasioned to the petitioner. 23. Be that as it may, even without going into minute details, it is evident that the petitioner was entitled to have an access to the documents and statements as asked for by him, during the and throughout the course of the inquiry. He would have needed these documents and statements in order to cross examine the witnesses who were produced at the inquiry to establish the charges against him. So also at the time of arguments, he would have needed the copies of the documents. So also he would have needed the copies of the documents in question to enable him to effectively cross-examine the witnesses with reference to the contents of these documents. It is precisely clear that he could not have done so if copies had not been made available to him in compliance with the statutory provisions contained in sub-regulations (2)(x)(b) I to IV, and 2(xi) and 2(xii) of regulation 68 of the- Service Regulations. And there has been total violation of the procedure contained in the statutory regulations, ibid. Taking an overall view of the matter, I have no doubt in my mind that the petitioner has been denied a reasonable opportunity of exonerating himself. I hold that the inquiry was conducted in breach of statutory regulations, ibid. The facts and circumstances discussed above, impel me to the conclusion that the petitioner was denied the opportunity to defend his case and to effectively cross examine the prosecution witnesses. 24. In the result, I am of the opinion that the impugned order of penalty of removal from the service of the respondent Bank passed against the petitioner vide Ann. 2, dated 3rd February, 1984, rendered by the disciplinary authority is violative of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India inasmuch as the petitioner has been denied reasonable opportunity of defending himself and is on that account null and void ab initio.. 25. I accordingly allow the writ petition. The impugned order of removal of the petitioner from Bank's service vide Ann.2 followed by affirmation vide Ann. 4, both are set aside and quashed. 25. I accordingly allow the writ petition. The impugned order of removal of the petitioner from Bank's service vide Ann.2 followed by affirmation vide Ann. 4, both are set aside and quashed. I further declare that the impugned order of the petitioner's removal from Bank's service is a nullity and non-existent in the eye of law and the petitioner must be treated as having continued in service from the date of the impugned order of removal. Taking into account the facts and circumstances of this case, and the time which has elapsed I am also of the opinion that the respondent Bank should not be permitted to hold a fresh inquiry against the petitioner on the charges in question. I, therefore direct the respondent Bank. not to do so. The petitioner would be entitled to all the consequential reliefs, financial (arrears of pay) upon reinstatement, promotion etc. and otherwise. All the said benefits should be restored to the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this judgment to be sent by the petitioner. 26. The parties will bear their own costs.Petition allowed. *******