Judgment Asbish N. Trivedi, J. 1. -this writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner No.1. a Clerk cum-Casbicr, working in the State Bank of India, Munger branch (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) and the Petitioner No.2 is the state Bank of India Employees Union, Bihar Branch and its General Secretary is the petitioner No.3. Respondent No.1 is the State Bank of India, respondent Nos.2 to 4 are Us Officers and Respondent No.5 is the Commissioner for departmental Enquiries, Central Vigilance Commission, Government of India, New Delhi. 2. The petitioners have prayed that the directions issued by the Respondent No.5, the commissioner for Departmental Enquiries, contained in the telegram dated 28-12-1993 (Annexure-5) directing the Petitioner No.1 to participate in the departmental proceedings failing which it would proceed expart as well as the order dated 21-1-1994 (Annexure-7) directing the petitioner to participate in the enquiry being taken/conducted by the Respondent no.5 in respect of the statement of charges contained in the charge-sheet dated 15-1-1992 (Annexure-1) the quashed, and it has been prayed that the respondent No.5 be restrained from taking/conducting the disciplinary proceedings against the Petitioner No 1, who is an Award Staff, and for a declaration that the Respondent No.5, the Commissioner for Departmental enquiries can only conduct enquiries against the Middle Management Level-Ill Officers and Officers of higher rank of the Bank and not against the Award staff of the Bank and for a direction that the disciplinary proceedings against an Award Staff is to be conducted strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Sastry Award as retained by Desai Award, according to which only the officers of the Bank can be deputed by the Disciplinary Authority to function as an Enquiry Officer. 3. 3. The case of the Petitioner No.1 is that he was working as Clerk-cum-cashier at the Munger Branch of the Bank when he received a letter dated 15-1-1992 (Annexure-1) from the Assistant General Manager, the Respondent no 3, who is the Disciplinary Authority of the Petitioner No 1 which contained the statement of charges calling upon the Petitioner No.1 in terms of Rule 521 , (4), (j) of the Sastry Award as retained by Desai Award to submit his written statement of defence, if any, within fifteen days of the receipt of the letter Written statement of defence dated 29-1-1992 (Annexure-2)was submitted by the Petitioner No 1 before the Disciplinary Authority, who by the letter dated 23-11-1992 (Annexure-3) informed the Petitioner no.1 that his explanation had not been found satisfactory and, therefore, an enquiry had been ordered to be conducted against the Petitioner No.1 by Sri J D. Verma, the Comissioner for Departmental Enquiries, Central vigilance Commission, Government of India, New Delhi, Respondent No.5 and Sri I. Fadili, Manager (Vigilance) of the Banks local Head Office, Patna was appointed as the Presenting Officer. Petitioner No.1 by bis letter dated 6-1-1993 (Annexure-4) informed the Disciplinary Authority that the petitioner being an Award Staff, disciplinary proceedings can only be initiated in accordance with the provisions of the Awards and Bipartite Agreements settlements and there was no rule or any provision in the said Awards and settlements enabling the Disciplinary Authority to appoint the Commissioner of Departmental an outsider, who is not an Officer of the Bank to function as the Enquiry Officer in the disciplinary proceedings against an Award Staff of the Bank. Soon thereafter, telegraphic communication was received on 28-12-1993, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-5 from the respondent No 5, the Commissioner for Departmental Enquiries intimating that the enquiry against Petitioner No. i is to commenced on 21-1-1994 at new Delhi advising the petitioner No.1 to appear that on date. Soon thereafter, telegraphic communication was received on 28-12-1993, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-5 from the respondent No 5, the Commissioner for Departmental Enquiries intimating that the enquiry against Petitioner No. i is to commenced on 21-1-1994 at new Delhi advising the petitioner No.1 to appear that on date. Petitioner No.1 by his registered letter dated 8-1-1994 (Aanexure-6) informed the Respondent no.5 that he was a clerical employee posted in the Munger Branch of the bank and as such the enquiry is to be held in terms of Rule 52/70 of the state Bank of India (Supervisory/officers Staff) Service Rules, which provides that the Bank shall consult the Central Vigilance Commission wherever necessary, in respect of all disciplinary cases, having vigilance angle, and it was pointed out that such consultation was confined only to those vigilance cases in which the Middle Management Grade-Ill Officers or Officers of higher rank drawing a minimum pay not less than Rs.1800/-per mensem and as regards the disciplinary proceedings and the procedure therefore in so far as the Petitioner No, 1 is concerned is governed by Clauses 520 and 521 of sastry Award as modifed by Desai Award and the three Bipartite Settlements none of which provides for referring the discipli nary cases of Award Staff to the Central Vigilancs Commission, and in view of Clause-521 (12) of the sastry Award, it is only the Disciplicncy Authority, who is competent to appoint another Officer of the Bank as an Enquiry Officer and further that in view of the Departmental Enquiries (Pnforcement of Attendance of witnesses and Production of Documents) Act, 1972 the Petitioner No 1 cannot be forced/coerced to attend/participate in the enquiry as he was not being called as a witness, and in the circumstances the Petitioner No.1 expressed his inability. A copy of the ietter addressed to the Respondent No.5 was also sent to the concerned, Officers of the Bank. 4. The Commissioner of Departmental Enquiries, Respondent No 5 by his letter dated 21-1-1994 (Annexure-7) informed the Petitioner No.1 that preliminary hearing in the departmental enquiry against him was held on 21-1-1994 and a copy of the order-sheet record on that date was sent for his information and compliance. 5. Extracts from the "vigilance Manual" and "the State Bank of India vigilance Manual relating to Central Vigilance commission" have been annexed as Annexures-8 and 9 to the writ petition. 6. 5. Extracts from the "vigilance Manual" and "the State Bank of India vigilance Manual relating to Central Vigilance commission" have been annexed as Annexures-8 and 9 to the writ petition. 6. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondent Bank opposing the writ petition stating that a Departmental Proceedings have been initiated against the then Branch Manager and the then Field Officer of the munger Branch of the Bank by the Commissioner for Departmental Enquiries, respondent No.6 and since the charges against the Petitioner No, I apd those two Officers arose out of some transaction and are based on some facts and documents, it was considered just and proper that the charges against the Petitioner No 1 be enquired into by the same Enquiry Officer, accordingly the Disciplinary Authority of the Petitioner No.1 ordered the enquiry against him to be conducted by the Commissioner for Departmental enquiries, Respondent 5. It is claimed that the provisions contained in clasue-521 (12) of the Sastry Award as modified by the Desai Award and the Bipartite Settlements do not prohibit holding of Departmental Enquiry bv the Commissioner for Departmental Enquires appointed as Enquiry Officer by the Disciplinary Authority. It is emphasised that the Commissioner for Departmental Enquiries is an independant authority and as such the chances of the allegation of bias are ruled out, and the enquiry can be expeditiously concluded, if continued by the same Enquiry Officer. 7. No counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondent No.5. Petitioner has not filed Rejoinder Affidavit to the Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of toe Respondent-Bank. 8. The grievance of the petitioners is that the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner No.1 an Award btaff, can be conducted only in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the Sastry Award as modified by the Desai Award and the Bipartite Settlements, according to which the Departmental Enquiry against an Award Staff is to be conducted either by the disciplinary Authority or any other officer of the Bank appointed by ihe disciplinary Authority for this purpose and the Central Vigilance Commission or for that matter Respondent No.5 has no authority to conduct the enquiry against the Award Staff of the State Bank of India. The petitioners have no objection to the enquiry being conducted either by the Disciplinary Authority or by any other officer of the Bank appointed by the Disciplinary authority. 9. The petitioners have no objection to the enquiry being conducted either by the Disciplinary Authority or by any other officer of the Bank appointed by the Disciplinary authority. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that in terms of clause-521 (12) of the Sastry Award, the Disciplinary Authority and the enquiry officer has to be an Officer of the Bank and not an outsider. Learned counsel referring to various provisions of the Vigilance Manual and the State bank of India Vigilance Manual (Annexures-8 and 9) submitted that the role of the Central Vigilance Commission was advisory in nature and none of the provisions empower the Bank to appoint Central Vigilance Commission or its officers as the Enquiry Officer in disciplinary proceedings against an Award staff. 10. Learned counsel contended that Sastry Award is a self-contained code and since the procedure for taking disciplinary has been prescribed in clause-520 and 521 of the Sastry Award any deviation-from the prescribed procedure renders the action invalid, and in support of his contention, placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in State Bank of India V/s. Workmen of the State Bank of India [ air 1990 SC 2034 ] in which it was observed that Clause-521 of the Sastry Award is a self-contained Code of disciplinary action and of the procedure for taking it and that the predominant object of the Award is to protect the interests of the employees. learned counsel further contended that since there is no express provision enabling the Disciplinary Authority to appoint the Commissioner for department Enquiries as the Enquiry Officer, the benefit should go to the petitioner and in support of his contention placed reliance on "the decision of the Supreme Court in KCP Employees Association, Madras V/s. The management of KCP Ltd and Others [ air 1978 SC 474 ], in which it was observed that in Industrial Law, interpreted and applied in the perspective of party-IV of the Constitution, the benefit of reasonable doubt on law and facts, if there be such doubt, must go to the weaker section, labour. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Union of India V/s. H. C. Goyal (AIR 1963 SC 364] in support of his contention that the procedure prescribed in the disciplinary proceedings has to be followed. 12. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the decision of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Union of India V/s. H. C. Goyal (AIR 1963 SC 364] in support of his contention that the procedure prescribed in the disciplinary proceedings has to be followed. 12. On behalf of the Bank, it was submitted by the learned counsel that the Officer mentioned in Clause-521 (12) of the Sastry Award includes even an Officer not in the employment of the Bank and there is no provision in the Awards or the Bipartite Settlements, which prohibits the appointment of the Central Vigilance Commission or its Officers as the Enquiry Officer in the disciplinary proceedings against an Award Staff. It was submitted that equally efficacious alternative remedy was available to the petitioner by raising industrial dispute and the writ petition is not maintainable. 13. Having considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and the material on record, I am of the view that the order of appointment of Sri J. D. Verma, Commissioner for Departmental Enquiries, central Vigilance Commission, New Delhi, Respondent No.5 by the disciplinary Authority, the Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India zonal Office, Bhagalpur, Respondent No.3 made by Annexure-3 cannot be sustained. 14. The procedure for taking disciplinary action against an Award staff which was contained in Section-Ill of Chapter-XXV of he Sastry Award was amended by the Desai Award and the four Bipartite Settlements. For the adjudication of controversies involved in the present case, the relevant provisions are contained in Clauses-19.14 of the Third Bipartite Settlement which read as under : "the Chief Executive Officer or the Principal Officer in India of a bank or an alternate Officer at the Head Officer or principle office nominated by him for the purpose shall decide which officer (i. e. the Disciplinary Authority) shall be empowered to take disciplinary action in the case of each office or establishment. He shall also decide which officer or body higher in status that the officer authorised to take disciplinary action shall act as the appellate Authority to deal with or hear and dispose of any appeal against orders passed in disciplinary matters. He shall also decide which officer or body higher in status that the officer authorised to take disciplinary action shall act as the appellate Authority to deal with or hear and dispose of any appeal against orders passed in disciplinary matters. These authorities shall be nominated by designation, to pass original orders or hear and dispose of appeals from time to time and a notice specifying the authorities so nominated shall be published from time to time on the banks notice board. It is clarified that the disciplinary authority may conduct the enquiry himself or appoint another officer as the Enquiry officer for the purpose of conducting an enquiry. The Appellate Authority shall, if the employee concerned is so desirous, in a case of dismissal, hear him or his representatives before disposing of the appeal In cases, where hearings are not required, an appeal shall be disposed of within two months from the date of receipt thereof. In cases where hearings are required to be given and requested for, such hearings shall commence within one month from the date of receipt of the appeal and shall be disposed of within one month from the date of conclusion qf such hearings. The period within which an appeal can be preferred shall be 45 days from the date on which the original order has been communicated in writing to the employee concerned. " 15. A perusal of Clause-19.14 here in above would show that the Chief executive Officer or the Principal Officer in India of the Bank or an alternate officer at the Head Officer or the Principal Officer nominated by the Chief executive Officer for the purpose is to decide which Officer shall function as the Disciplinary Authority in the case of each office or establishment and will also decide which Officer or body higher in status than the Officer authorised to take disciplinary action will be the Appellate Authority. It is further evident that it is open for the Disciplinary Authority either to conduct the enquiry himself or appoint and other Officer as the Enquiry officer. . 16. In the present case, admittedly the Disciplinary Authority is the respondent No, 3, the Assistant General Manager who was appointed the respondent No.5, the Commissioner for Departmental Enquiries, as the enquiry Officer. . 16. In the present case, admittedly the Disciplinary Authority is the respondent No, 3, the Assistant General Manager who was appointed the respondent No.5, the Commissioner for Departmental Enquiries, as the enquiry Officer. It is not the case of the Respondent-Bank that the Chief executive Officer or an Officer nominated by him as envisaged in Clause-19.14 of the Sastry Award and had taken a decision to appoint the Commissioner for Departmental Enquiries, Respondent On.5 to function as the Enquiry officer in the departmental proceedings against the petitioner No.1. It is also not in dispute that the Commissioner for Departmental Enquiries, Respondent No.5 is not an officer of the Bank. There is no provision contained in Clause-19 of the Bipartite Settlement which enables the Disciplinary authority to apdoint a person, who is not an Officer of the Bank to conduct the enquiry against an Award Staff. 17. The contention of the learned counsel for the Respondent-Bank that it is just and convenient that the Respondent No.5 be permitted to continue with the Departmental Enquiry, as enquiry is being made against two Officers and the charges are the same for which the enquiry has been initiated the petitioner No.1. cannot be accepted for the reasons that there is DO provision enabling the Disciplinary Authority to appoint any person other than an Officer of the Bank as the Enquiry Officer. Accordingly, the order dated 23-11-1992 (Annexure-3) passed by the Respondent No.3 appointing the Respondent No.5, the Commissioner for Departmental enquiries, as the Enquiry Officer in the Departmental Proceedings against the petitioner No.1 and the directions dated 28-12-1993 (Annexure-5) and 21-1-1994 (Annexure-7) passed by the Respondent No.5 against the petitioner no.1 cannot be sustained. 18. Accordingly, the order dated 23-11-1992 (Annexure-3) passed by the Respondent No.3 appointing the Respondent No.5, the Commissioner for Departmental enquiries, as the Enquiry Officer in the Departmental Proceedings against the petitioner No.1 and the directions dated 28-12-1993 (Annexure-5) and 21-1-1994 (Annexure-7) passed by the Respondent No.5 against the petitioner no.1 cannot be sustained. 18. It may be clarified that though an outsider may be appointed as the Enquiry Officer even against an Award Staff but such a decision has to be taken by the Chief Executive Officer or the Principal Officer in India of the bank or an alternate Officer at the Head Office or Principal Office nominated the Chief Executive Officer as to who shall be the Disciplinary Authority and while taking such a decision it is open for the Chief Executive Officer or such other Officers mentioned in Clause 19.14 to decide that the enquiry shall be conducted by the Central Vigilance Commission or its Officers, and in my view, no legitimate exception can be taken by the petitioners to the appointment of the Commissioner for Departmental Enquiries as the Enquiry Officer in the matter of an Award Staff like petitioner No. I provided that the decision is taken by the Chief Executive Officer or the other Officers mentioned in Clause-19.14 of the Bipartite Settlement. 19. In the result, the writ petition is allowed in part and the impugned orders dated 23-11-1992, 28-12-1993 and 21-1-1994 passed by Respondent Nos.3 and 5 respectively are quashed. The Respondent No.5 is restrained from functioning as the Enpuiry Officer in pursuance of Annexure-3 in the disciplinary proceedigns against the petitioner No.1 It is however, open for the Respondent-Bank and its authorities to proceed against the petitioner No.1 keeping in view the observations made above and in accordance with law. No order as to costs. petition partly allowed.