Research › Search › Judgment

Karnataka High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 327 (KAR)

H. SURENDRA SHETTY v. VIJAYA BANK, BANGALORE

2000-04-18

H.L.DATTU

body2000
H. L. DATTU, J. ( 1 ) DOMESTIC enquiries into the charges of misconduct of employees do not always inspire any great confidence in their impartiality because employer virtually becomes a Judge in his own cause by appointing his nominee as the enquiry officer. The eroding faith in the domestic enquiry will vanish altogether, if an employer goes on repeating enquiries till the ultimate result satisfies him in the style of repeating the mixture till the patient is dead. It is therefore necessary to visit even domestic enquiries with an increasing content of fairness and insulating as far as possible their perfunctoriness. ( 2 ) IT is triate that a person cannot be vexed twice for the same cause. An employee officer against whom disciplinary proceedings had been initiated on a particular charge as a result of which a punishment of 'warning' is also awarded by the employer, cannot subsequently charge-sheet him for the. same offence is the theme of this writ petition. ( 3 ) PETITIONER is employed as Senior Branch Manager of respondent-Vijaya Bank. He worked as Branch Manager at respondent-Banner-ghatta Branch, Bangalore, during 30-5-1986 to 1-6-1987, Gandhi Bazaar branch, Bangalore, during 1-6-1987 to 9-5-1992, Noida Branch, Delhi, during 22-5-1993 to 25-4-1998 and now as Senior Branch Manager at l. H. H. Road, Mangalore Branch. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner impugns the domestic enquiry proceedings, which is sought to be held against him on the basis of the charges contained in the charge memo bearing reference No. BMR:irs:cs:036:99-2000, dated 16-12-1999. Secondly, for a direction to the respondent-Bank to refrain from proceeding with the matter in pursuance of the charge memo and lastly, to issue writ to quash the orders made by the Disciplinary Authority in appointing the enquiry and presenting officer to inquire into the charges contained in the charge memo dated 16-12-1999. ( 4 ) IN aid of the reliefs sought in the petition, it is stated that he was served with a memo of charges dated 19-5-1995, inter alia alleging that he had committed irregularities of omissions and commissions while he was working as Branch Manager at Gandhi Bazaar Branch, Bangalore, and at Noida Branch at Delhi. The details of allegations were also made known to him in the charge memo itself. The details of allegations were also made known to him in the charge memo itself. Petitioner was directed to offer his explanation within 15 days of the receipt of the letter and failing which it will be deemed that he has no explanation to offer and the matter would be proceeded with in accordance with law without any further reference to him. This letter came to be replied by the petitioner by filing his written statement of defence in detail, denying that he had committed the acts of misconduct alleged in the charge memo/letter on the various dates in different branches, which constituted his dishonesty, lack of integrity unbecoming of a Bank Officer. By an order dated 31-1-1996, the General Manager of the respondent-Bank after receipt of the explanation of the petitioner dated 15-7-1995 to the letter of the bank dated 19-5-1995, though the explanation offered by the petitioner was unconvincing takes a very lenient view of the matter considering petitioner's past records of business development at the Branch, only cautions him against repetition of such lapses in future. The entire case of the petitioner revolves round on this communication. Therefore, in my opinion, the same requires to be extracted and it is as under: "ref. No. ZOB:insp:osr:2650/96 dated 31-1-1996 confidential sri H. Surendra Shetty (Code No. 6199), senior Branch Manager, noida (7126), Vijaya Bank, a-5, Sector 19, noida Complex-201301, ghaziabad District. Reg: Irregularities committed by you while working as Senior branch Manager at our Gandhi Bazaar Branch, Bangalore. This refers to your letter of explanation dated 15-7-1995 on the various lapses pointed out in Z. O. , Bangalore, letter No. ZOB:insp:4222/95, dated 19-5-1995. Though the various explanations mentioned by you in your said letter are not convincing, we have taken a lenient view of the matter, considering your past record of business development at the branch. However, you are cautioned against repetition of such lapses in future. Though the various explanations mentioned by you in your said letter are not convincing, we have taken a lenient view of the matter, considering your past record of business development at the branch. However, you are cautioned against repetition of such lapses in future. In addition, should the bank be ultimately exposed to any financial loss in respect of the borrowal accounts detailed in the said Z. O. letter dated 19-5-1995, you should personally assist the bank in the recovery of such financial loss to the bank, as the decision to view the lapses on your part leniently has been based on your assurance in your letter of explanation that adequate care has been taken by you to secure the bank's interest in respect of the commented accounts. Sd/- (O. S. Ramamurthy) general Manager z. O. : Bangalore". ( 5 ) MAY be after keeping the matter in cold storage for nearly three years and only at the insistence and directions of the Reserve Bank of india and Central Vigilance Office, the respondent-Bank has now thought of issuing a charge memo dated 16-12-1999 signed by one Sri deranna Rai, Deputy General Manager/disciplinary Authority under the Vijaya Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1981. They related to the events, when petitioner was working as branch Manager at Gandhi Bazaar Branch, Bangalore, and at Noida branch, Delhi, and among other things it specifies that the petitioner had acted without honesty and integrity and in a way unbecoming of a bank Officer thereby committing gross misconduct under Regulation 3 (1) read with Regulation 24 of the Conduct Regulations. The charge memo is accompanied with list of documents and list of witnesses on which the employer intends to rely upon in support of the charges. Petitioner is asked by the disciplinary authority to offer his explanation to the charge-sheet in writing within 15 days of the receipt of the charge memo, as the enquiry is proposed to be held against him. By his reply dated 6-1-2000, petitioner has offered his explanation in writing denying the charges alleged in the charge memo and has further requested the disciplinary authority to drop the proceedings. But before disciplinary authority could react to the reply of the petitioner, he has rushed to this court inter alia seeking the reliefs indicted by me earlier. By his reply dated 6-1-2000, petitioner has offered his explanation in writing denying the charges alleged in the charge memo and has further requested the disciplinary authority to drop the proceedings. But before disciplinary authority could react to the reply of the petitioner, he has rushed to this court inter alia seeking the reliefs indicted by me earlier. ( 6 ) SRI Subramanya Jois, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner in support of the main reliefs sought in the petition primarily contends that the issuance of the charge memo by the disciplinary authority of the respondent-Bank is without jurisdiction and without authority of law and as an all alibi against the petitioner's prayer for promotion sought by him in W. P. No. 24477 of 1999 and secondly, the respondent- disciplinary authority earlier also had issued similar and same charge memo and being convinced with the explanation offered by the petitioner had imposed a warning as a punishment, cannot now issue a second charge memo to hold second enquiry on the same charges with a view to punish petitioner and if second enquiry is permitted after the previous one has resulted in exoneration, the danger of harassment to the employee officer would be immense. In support of these contentions, the learned Senior Counsel relies upon the observations made by the supreme Court in the case of K. R. Deb v Collector of Central Excise, shillong, the decision of this Court in the case of P. Andrews v District educational Officer, Bangalore District and the decision of the Madras high Court in the case of E. S. Athithyaraman v Commissioner, Hindu religious and Charitable Endowments (Administration) Department, madras. ( 7 ) THE learned Senior Counsel Sri Ramdas for the respondent-Bank firstly submits that in fact there was no formal enquiry against the petitioner as the one held was fact finding enquiry. Secondly, it is stated, even it is assumed that the communication of the respondent- bank dated 19-5-1995 was nothing but initiation of domestic enquiry proceedings by issuing the charge memo, the second domestic enquiry proceedings could be ordered by the employer, after the previous one has resulted in the exoneration of the employee officer. It is also sought to be maintained that warning itself is no punishment. It is also sought to be maintained that warning itself is no punishment. The learned Senior counsel in support of his contention strongly relies upon the notings of the Board of Directors of the Bank before the initiation of the enquiry proceedings and the observations of the Apex Court in the case of National bicycle Corporation of India Limited v Ashok Kumar Singh and the decision of Sikkim High Court in the case of Ajay Kaul v Union of india and Others. ( 8 ) THIS is not one of those cases, where full-fledged enquiry was held by the disciplinary authority regarding the charges alleged in the charge memo and after such enquiry, charges were dropped by the disciplinary authority in view of the report of the enquiry officer and again not one of those cases, where fresh enquiry proceedings are initiated in view of setting aside of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority by any higher forum for technical reasons and further, not one of those cases where proper enquiry was not held because of some defects has crept into the enquiry or some important witnesses were not available at the time of enquiry and were not examined for some other reasons, for which reason, the disciplinary authority is asking the enquiry officer to record further evidence but one of those cases, where communication in the form of a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner inter alia alleging several irregularities said to have been committed by the petitioner while working as Branch Manager at the respondent-Gandhi Bazaar branch, Bangalore, during the period 1-6-1987 to 9-5-1992 and at noida Branch, Delhi, during 22-5-1993 to 25-4-1998. The show cause notice had directed the petitioner to offer his explanation, if any, by way of his defence statement within 15 days of the receipt of the notice, failing which it will be deemed that the delinquent officer has no explanation to offer and the matter would be proceeded further to its logical conclusion. The petitioner had filed his reply statement of defence denying the allegations contained in the communication dated 16-9-1995 and had further stated that during his tenure as Branch Manager in Gandhi bazaar Branch, Bangalore, and at Noida Branch at Delhi, he was solely responsible for increasing the business of the Bank and lastly requests the disciplinary authority of the bank to drop any further action against him. The explanation so offered did find favour with the General Manager of the Bank and that had resulted in the communication dated 31-1-1996 where General Manager of the Bank observes that though the explanation offered by the petitioner was not convincing, yet a lenient view of the matter is taken considering petitioner's past record of business development at the branch and further, he is cautioned against repetition of such lapses in future. Nearly after three years from the date of this communication, the impugned charge memo is issued against the petitioner inter alia alleging the same charges of which petitioner was exonerated earlier. The primary contention of the learned senior Counsel for petitioner seems to be that it is not open to the disciplinary authority to reopen the matter and to impose the penalty on the same charges and therefore, respondents were not justified in issuing the impugned charge memo dated 16-12-1999. In support of his legal contention, the learned Senior Counsel heavily relies upon the observations of this Court in Andrews case, supra. Before I advert to the contentions canvassed by learned Counsels for the parties, let me first notice the fact situation and the law declared by this Court in Andrews case, supra. On October 10, 1961, the petitioner was charge-sheeted and in that, it was stated that he had appeared as a teacher candidate for SSLC examination without the requisite qualifications and on October 24, 1961, he gave his explanation. After receipt of the explanation, the disciplinary proceedings were not pursued by the disciplinary authority. Nearly after a period of three and half years, the charges were once again revived. Aggrieved by this action, petitioner had filed a writ petition. The Division Bench of this Court while allowing the petition was pleased to observe:"if, after the production of this explanation, the disciplinary proceeding was not continued, what should reasonably follow is that the disciplinary authority was satisfied with the explanation and dropped the charges. The strength of that inference receives reinforcement from the fact that it was only after a period of 3 and half years that the charges were once again revived. The strength of that inference receives reinforcement from the fact that it was only after a period of 3 and half years that the charges were once again revived. The great and inordinate delay in the revival of those charges and the antecedent discontinuance of the earlier disciplinary proceeding over a long tract of time, can have no other meaning than that the disciplinary authority was satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner on October 24, 1961 and that in consequence the proceedings against him were discontinued and abandoned. If that was how the earlier disciplinary proceeding terminated, it was not within the competence of the disciplinary authority to examine those charges and to make them the subject-matter of another disciplinary proceeding, as late as in the year 1964. We do not say that it is not permissible for a disciplinary authority ts discontinue a disciplinary proceeding and start another in respect of the same matter, if thereby a defect or other analogous reason for the discontinuance of one proceeding and for the commencement of another. But that was not what happened in the case before us. The circumstances in which the first disciplinary proceeding was discontinued support no other inferences than that the discontinuance was the outcome of the acceptance of the explanation offered by the petitioner". ( 9 ) NOW, in my view, the only issue that requires to be considered and decided is whether the disciplinary authority of the respondent-Bank is justified in initiating the domestic enquiry proceedings against the petitioner by issuing the impugned charge memo on the basis of the same or similar charges for which an enquiry was held earlier and the proceedings came to an end after accepting the explanation offered by the petitioner and by imposing a punishment of 'warning by the General manager of the Bank. ( 10 ) THE powers of the disciplinary authority are circumscribed by the provisions of Vijaya Bank Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) regulations, 1981. Regulation 4 provides for penalties which may be imposed on an officer employee for acts of misconduct or for any other good and sufficient reasons. 'warning' is not one of the punishments enumerated under this regulation. Regulation 6 provides for procedure for imposing major penalties and Regulation 8 provides for imposing minor penalties. Regulation 4 provides for penalties which may be imposed on an officer employee for acts of misconduct or for any other good and sufficient reasons. 'warning' is not one of the punishments enumerated under this regulation. Regulation 6 provides for procedure for imposing major penalties and Regulation 8 provides for imposing minor penalties. These regulations do not specifically provide for ordering second or de novo enquiry by the disciplinary authority and at the same time, these regulations do not prohibit any such order being passed. While construing more or less similar provisions, the Supreme court has observed that the disciplinary authority can always order fresh enquiry. ( 11 ) IN the case of State of Assam and Another v J. N. Roy Biswas, it was observed by the Supreme Court as under:"we may however make it clear that no Government servant can urge that if for some technical or other good ground, procedural or other, the first enquiry or punishment or exoneration is found bad in law that a second enquiry cannot be launched". ( 12 ) THE observations made in the aforesaid decision was later followed by the Supreme Court in the case of Anand Narain Shukla v State of Madhya Pradesh. In this case, the enquiry proceedings had been completed, but on a writ petition being filed, the same were quashed. Then fresh proceedings on the same charges were held and the employee officer was found guilty of certain charges. Punishment was again awarded. The second writ petition was filed in which it was inter alia contended that on the same old charges, a fresh enquiry could not have been held. The High Court dismissed the writ petition and when the matter reached the Supreme Court, the Court was pleased to observe: "the earlier order was quashed on the technical ground. On merits, a second enquiry could be held. It was rightly held". ( 13 ) LASTLY, a reference may be made to the observations of the Supreme court in the case of K. R, Deb, supra, on which reliance was placed by Sri Jois, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. In my view, the observations made by the Apex Court instead of supporting the case of the petitioner, supports the case of the respondent-Bank. In my view, the observations made by the Apex Court instead of supporting the case of the petitioner, supports the case of the respondent-Bank. It reads as under:"it seems to us that Rule 15, on the face of it, really provides for one inquiry but it may be possible if in a particular case there has been no proper enquiry because some serious defect has crept into the inquiry or some important witnesses were not available at the time of the inquiry or were not examined for some other reason, the disciplinary authority may ask the inquiry officer to record further evidence. But there is no provision in Rule 15 for completely setting aside previous inquiries on the ground that the report of the inquiring officer or officers does not appeal to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority has enough powers to reconsider the evidence itself and come to its own conclusion under Rule 9". ( 14 ) IN my opinion, in view of the observations made by Apex Court in the aforementioned three decisions, it can safely be said that depending on the facts of each case, it is possible for the disciplinary authority to order fresh enquiry if there has been no proper enquiry because of any serious defect or punishment has been awarded without holding a formal or regular enquiry prior to the awarding of punishment. In the instant case, the General Manager of the respondent-Bank, who is Senior Officer to the Deputy General Manager, who is the disciplinary authority holds in his communication dated 31-1-1996 that though the explanation offered by the petitioner is not convincing, he has taken lenient view of the matter considering the past record of business development of the Branch by the petitioner and imposes a punishment of warning which is not one of the punishments envisaged under the regulations of the bank. Realising this infirmity and in view of the decisions issued by Chief Vigilance Officer, the disciplinary authority has now issued a fresh charge memo on the same allegation with an intention to hold a detailed enquiry. I find no infirmity in initiation of fresh proceedings in view of the observations made by Apex Court in the cases referred by me earlier and in view of these decisions, the reliance placed by learned Senior Counsel on the observations made by this Court may not assist him in any manner whatsoever. I find no infirmity in initiation of fresh proceedings in view of the observations made by Apex Court in the cases referred by me earlier and in view of these decisions, the reliance placed by learned Senior Counsel on the observations made by this Court may not assist him in any manner whatsoever. ( 15 ) SECONDLY, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondents in initiating de novo enquiry proceedings against the petitioner is not but abuse of the process of their powers to circumvent the reliefs sought in W. P. No. 24477 of 1999, which is pending consideration of this Court. To buttress this contention, the learned Counsel carefully takes me through several dates and several steps taken by respondents during the interregnum between the date of filing the aforesaid petition and the impugned charge memo. The contention canvassed at the first impression seems to be very attractive but on a reflection, it sounds very shallow and has no merit. To appreciate this contention of the learned Senior Counsel, a perusal of the confidential records maintained by the Bank may be necessary. I am adverting to these correspondences and documents for the reason that those communications and documents are no more confidential because petitioner is in possession of these documents and in fact, he has produced some of these documents as annexures to this writ petition. ( 16 ) I can begin the discussion from the stage the General Manager of the Bank accepted the explanation offered by the petitioner to their show-cause notice dated 19-5-1995. On 19-11-1996, an anonymous letter was forwarded by the Ministry of Finance, Government of India, to the reserve Bank of India, for looking into various allegations made against the petitioner and other officers of the Bank. Based on this unsigned letter, the Reserve Bank of India had requested the respondent-Bank to make further investigations into the irregularities said to have been committed by the petitioner and other officers working in the Bank. On 1-11-1997, the Bank submitted its detailed report covering all the allegations contained in the unsigned complaint letter. The Reserve Bank not being satisfied with the explanation and the report of the respondent-Bank had deputed Sri Sampath, a Senior Assistant General Manager of the Bank to examine the matter and submit his report on the various allegations contained in the anonymous letter. The Reserve Bank not being satisfied with the explanation and the report of the respondent-Bank had deputed Sri Sampath, a Senior Assistant General Manager of the Bank to examine the matter and submit his report on the various allegations contained in the anonymous letter. After a thorough investigation into the murky deals by petitioner and others, Sri Sam- path submitted his report dated 7-8-1997 and suggested to the General manager/chief Vigilance Officer of the Bank to re-examine the cases relating to the petitioner and others from staff accountability angle and take appropriate action in consultation with the Board/managing Committee of the Bank. The Reserve Bank by its communication dated 20-12-1997 forwarded the extracts from the report of Sri Sampath and re-examined the cases concerning the petitioner and others as suggested in the report. Pursuant to these reports and directions contained therein, the Chief Vigilance Officer of the Bank submitted his report dated 15-6-1998 to the Board of Directors of the Bank and seeking further directions of the Board in the matter. The Board in its meeting held on 15-6-1998, after a due deliberation of the report and the notings of the Vigilance Officer was pleased to direct re-opening of the case and also to have the Staff accountability angle examine afresh by a Committee of Executives to be appointed by the Chairman and Managing Director. In the light of the decision taken by the Board, the Chairman and managing Director issued a notification dated 19-8-1998 constituting a committee to re-examine the cases relating to the petitioner and others. The Committee so constituted submitted its report dated 24-12-1998, inter alia, observing "that in view of the foregoing discussions, we are of the considered view that the disagreeing with the decisions already taken by the respective authorities at this stage, is not appropriate". This report was placed before the Board in agenda item No. C-39 of 1999 in the Board Meeting held on 8-5-1999 and the Board was pleased to observe "that in view of the fact that there were certain irregularities committed by the said officers as detailed by the Committee in page No. 25 of the report, it was felt that there is need for a deeper probe into the action of commission and omission in several accounts, some of which are in NPA category. Accordingly, Bank shall initiate appropriate disciplinary proceedings". Accordingly, Bank shall initiate appropriate disciplinary proceedings". In spite of the Board's decision and direction, the deputy General Manager of the Bank, who is the disciplinary authority in the petitioner's case by his communication dated 16-6-1999 in response to the direction of the Chief Vigilance Officer of the Bank dated 31-5-1999 opines that it may not be feasible and legally tenable to initiate the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner in view of the orders made by the Bank dated 16-5-1995 imposing a penalty of warning against the petitioner for the irregularities said to have been committed by the petitioner while working at Gandhi Bazaar, Bangalore, and noida Branch, Delhi, of the respondent-Bank. It is on 18-6-1999, the departmental Promotion Committee met for consideration of the cases of 13 officials for promotion to the Senior Management Grade, Scale IV position in the Bank including that of the petitioner. The Departmental promotion Committee in the petitioner's case has adopted 'sealed Cover procedure' and his entitlement to the benefit for promotion is kept in the sealed cover to be opened after the initial disability is removed. The bank by its Official Memorandum dated 19-6-1999 notified the promotion of certain other officers to the next promotional post and aggrieved by this action of the respondent-Bank, petitioner has filed W. P. No. 24477 of 1999 on 16-7-1999, inter alia, questioning his supersession for promotion. During the pendency of this petition, the Chief Vigilance officer of the Bank by his letter dated 4-9-1999 advises the Deputy general Manager, Regional Officer of the Bank to look in to the Staff accountability and initiate appropriate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner for the irregularities committed while working as Branch manager at Gandhi Bazaar Branch of the Bank. Pursuant to the aforesaid advice, the Deputy General Manager/disciplinary authority by its internal office correspondence dated 24-9-1999 after enumerating the various irregularities said to have been committed by the petitioner recommends initiation of major penalty proceedings against the petitioner and seeks first stage advice in the matter. In view of this request, the Chief Vigilance Officer of the Bank, requests the Director, Central vigilance Commission, New Delhi by his official correspondence dated 12-10-1999, to tender its first stage advice in the matter. In view of this request, the Chief Vigilance Officer of the Bank, requests the Director, Central vigilance Commission, New Delhi by his official correspondence dated 12-10-1999, to tender its first stage advice in the matter. The Commission while agreeing with the Bank's suggestion by its Official Memorandum dated 22-11-1999 advises the Chief Vigilance Officer to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner and further nominates one Sri P. S. Khuntia, CDI to hold the enquiry proceedings. Pursuant to the first stage advice received, the Chief Vigilance Officer of the Bank concurs with the recommendation made by the disciplinary authority in its official correspondence dated 24-9-1999 to initiate disciplinary action under Major Penalty Proceedings against the petitioner and further recommends for appointment of Sri P. S. Kuntia, CDI (CVC) as Inquiry officer. It is only thereafter, the disciplinary authority has issued and served the impugned charge memo dated 16-12-1999 on the petitioner. However, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondents is smacked with arbitrariness and with oblique motive of denying the reliefs sought for by the petitioner in W. P. No. 24477 of 1999 but also to victimise the petitioner for having approached this Court. In my opinion, there is no truth in the allegation made by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. The facts in detail which I have adverted to in the previous paragraphs would clearly belie the statement of the learned Senior Counsel. It is true that the General manager of the Bank by his letter dated 31-1-1996 had accepted the explanation offered by the petitioner on the lapses pointed out by the deputy General Manager in his letter dated 19-5-1995. However, thereafter, at the direction of the Reserve Bank of India and the Central vigilance Commission, the disciplinary authority of the Bank has issued the impugned charge memo dated 16-12-1999 after a lengthy investigation and correspondence. Therefore, in my opinion, the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner is not justified in contending that the respondents have initiated the domestic inquiry proceedings only to deny the reliefs sought in the W. P. No. 24477 of 1999. At this stage, in my opinion, the reference to the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of National Bicycle Corporation of India Limited's case, supra, may help the discussion. At this stage, in my opinion, the reference to the observations made by the Apex Court in the case of National Bicycle Corporation of India Limited's case, supra, may help the discussion. That was a case where the Board of Directors of the appellate Company, which is a public sector undertaking in its meeting held on 23-11-1989 had initially taken a decision not to take any action against the respondent in respect of the charge-sheet which had been issued to the respondent. However thereafter, the Central Vigilance commission and the Ministry of Industries issued directives to the appellant-Company to hold a domestic inquiry, since a prima facie case had been found against the respondent and another officer. Pursuant to the directions so issued, the Board in its subsequent meeting held on 25-6-1991 decided to proceed with the departmental inquiry against the respondent and another officer on the basis of the charge memo which had been issued earlier. On a writ petition filed by the aggrieved employee-officer, the High Court quashed the charge-sheet dated 10-5-1991 and set aside the inquiry. On an appeal by the appellant-Company before the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court was pleased to allow the appeal and further was pleased to set aside the orders made by the High court and in that, the Court was pleased to observe as under. "we fail to see how such directions could have been given in the facts and circumstances of the present case only on the ground that the Board of Directors of the appellant had initially decided not to conduct an inquiry when the Central Vigilance Commission has examined the case and prima facie come to a conclusion that there is enough material to hold a departmental inquiry against the respondent, and the Board, pursuant to the directives given by the Central Vigilance Commission decided to hold an inquiry, no fault can be found with the subsequent decision taken by the Board". ( 17 ) I have therefore no hesitation to hold on the facts of this case that the allegation of bias, arbitrariness, vindictiveness attributed by the petitioner's learned Senior Counsel against the respondent-Bank has no basis nor any truth in it. In that view of the matter, petition fails on both counts. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Rule discharged. In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their own costs. Ordered accordingly. In that view of the matter, petition fails on both counts. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Rule discharged. In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties are directed to bear their own costs. Ordered accordingly. --- *** --- .