JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner was appointed as Manager with respondent Bank Jaipur Nagaur Gramin Aanchlik Bank (hereinafter to be called as 'Bank') in the year 1977 vide annexure-1. He was charge sheeted on 25.5.81 for the allegations mentioned in annexure-4, when he was posted as Manager Bichoon Branch, which was replied to by the petitioner vide annexure-5 on 22.9.81. He was dismissed from service on 20.11.84, copy of which has been attached as annexure-6. He challenged the order of dismissal (annexure-6) in writ petition No. 1200/85 before the High Court. The dismissal order was set aside for being in violation of principles of natural justice with liberty to respondent to hold afresh departmental enquiry in accordance with principles of natural justice in the light of observations made in the judgment (annexure-7). The petitioner submitted joining report, but was suspended on the same day i.e. 20.9.86. One Mr. O.P.Gupta was appointed as Enquiry Officer who was replaced by Mr. R. N. Bhargava. For the reason that the petitioner was being kept under suspension, he filed another writ petition No. 818/88 challenging the prolong suspension, wherein a direction was given to expedite the departmental enquiry and to pay subsistence allowance. The Enquiry Officer was again replaced by Mr. Alok Chaturvedi in May, 1989. The petitioner had filed another writ Petition No. 309/90 challenging his prolong suspension, which was decided on 28.11.90. The ex parte enquiry proceedings were taken against the petitioner. Certain directions were given by the High Court in order dated 28.11.90 for allowing the petitioner to cross examine the bank witnesses. The petitioner was to reach Head Office on 17.12.90 at 10.00 am for proceeding to the place of enquiry i.e. Bichoon. The petitioner did not reach office in time with the result the Enquiry Officer after waiting for petitioner went to Bichoon. The Enquiry Officer concluded the enquiry proceeding on 17.12.90 itself and closed the evidence as well as the defence. As per enquiry proceeding annexure-23, the enquiry report was submitted on 21.1.91 (Ann.24). Ultimately the petitioner was dismissed on 27.4.91 vide annexure-25. Even though according to petitioner the order was passed on 30.4.91. The departmental appeal was filed which according to petitioner was not decided within reasonable time and the petitioner had to file another writ petition No. 1006/93, wherein the direction was given by High Court to decide the appeal within stipulated period. Even though according to petitioner the order was passed on 30.4.91. The departmental appeal was filed which according to petitioner was not decided within reasonable time and the petitioner had to file another writ petition No. 1006/93, wherein the direction was given by High Court to decide the appeal within stipulated period. The appeal was ultimately dismissed on 26.7.93 vide annexure-26. 2. The petitioner has filed the writ petition challenging the order of dismissal and dismissal of appeal annexure-25 & 26, inter alia on the ground that about 20 charges were mentioned in the charge sheet; the CBI had found that no case had been made out and had submitted Final Report in court, which was accepted by the court; (2) the petitioner was not allowed to be represented by defence nominee Mr. Dhanesh Khare who was journalist or Mr. F.A.Khan a retired Supdt. of Labour Court when specially the Union Representative had refused to assist the petitioner and no other person was available to assist the petitioner; (3) that there is no such rule as to bar to be represented through outsider; (4) the Presiding Officer was an expert in holding the enquiries and was representing the Bank almost in all enquiries being held against the employees; (5) the petitioner was not being paid regularly the subsistence allowance during the enquiry proceeding; (6) No documents were allowed to be inspected or the enquiry is bad for the reason that he was not allowed to cross examine the witnesses, specially when 17.12.90 was not the date fixed to cross examine the witnesses but was for submitting the list of documents. Therefore the impugned order is malafide. In the proceeding of departmental enquiry, as per facts mentioned above, the present is the fifth writ petition filed by the petitioner. 3. Per contra, in the written statement the respondent has admitted that there was certain delay in paying subsistance allowance as the required certificate had not been submitted by petitioner to the fact that he had not been employed any where. It is submitted that documents were duly given to petitioner was borne out from the proceeding dated 13.12.90, copy of such acknowledgement has been attached as Annexure-R 5. It is also submitted that the petitioner had been prolonging the proceeding by not cross examining the witnesses. It is submitted that documents were duly given to petitioner was borne out from the proceeding dated 13.12.90, copy of such acknowledgement has been attached as Annexure-R 5. It is also submitted that the petitioner had been prolonging the proceeding by not cross examining the witnesses. The date was fixed 17.12.90 for cross examining the witnesses, which was so intimated to petitioner. The Enquiry Officer and the petitioner were to reach Head Office at 10.00 am and then to proceed for Bichoon. The Enquiry Officer had reached the office in time but the petitioner did not reach Head Office upto 11.30 am, with the result the Enquiry Officer had to proceed to the place of enquiry Bich oon. The petitioner did not reach the place of enquiry on 17.12.90. It is further submitted that in writ petition No. 309/90 decided on 28.12.90, the contention of petitioner in regard to assistance of co-worker as alleged was specifically rejected. In regard to final report submitted by CBI, it is submitted that it has no relevancy as the proof required for criminal liability is most stringent than the evidence to be brought in the enquiry. The enquiry was started in the year 1981 itself. The CBI has only opined that there was no sufficient evidence which may warrant conviction and thus has no relevancy whatsoever for continuance of enquiry proceeding against the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner was non-cooperative in the inquiry and the respondent had no alternative but to proceed in accordance with law and that there is no legal defect in the enquiry. 4. The report of the enquiry was also produced for perusal. Initially the order annexure-6 passed on 20.11.84 dismissing the petitioner was challenged by way of writ petition No. 1200/85. The High Court had observed that out of total 28 witnesses, who had been examined, as many as 20 witnesses have been examined in absence of petitioner and the principles of natural justice was violated. Consequently the writ petition was allowed with the liberty to respondent to hold fresh enquiry in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The order was passed on 19.9.86. In writ petition No. 818/88 decided on 11.4.88, this court had observed that the petitioner was entitled to subsistance allowance and that disciplinary proceeding should be disposed of expeditiously. Consequently the writ petition was allowed with the liberty to respondent to hold fresh enquiry in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The order was passed on 19.9.86. In writ petition No. 818/88 decided on 11.4.88, this court had observed that the petitioner was entitled to subsistance allowance and that disciplinary proceeding should be disposed of expeditiously. The order of this court dated 11.12.90 passed in writ petition No. 309/90 it was ordered that the witnesses examined after 7.8.90 in ex parte proceeding shall be recalled for the purpose of cross examination and the Bank shall also make arrangement for the petitioner to reach Bichoon, where the enquiry was to be held. 5. From the abovesaid narration of the facts, the only point which is required to be determined whether the Bank was to give the opportunity to cross examine the witnesses which had been examined in absence of petitioner after 7.8.90. Sarva Shri Vinod Kumar Keshot and Bundi Khatik were examined on 7.9.90; Chhitar S/o Jai Ram, Prahlad S/o Hardev and Chhitar Chopra, Branch Manager, M.T.Bijlani were examined on 10.9.90; whereas Mahendra s/o Nathu, Bholu S/o Ramchandra, Arjun Meena were examined on 11.9.90; Shyoji Ram and Virendra Singh Chauhan were examined on 16.10.90. There were 12 witnesses which were to be re-called for the purpose of cross examination. As per order of this court dated 11.12.90 the proceedings of enquiry were held on 13.12.90. On 13.12.90 of enquiry it was noticed by the Enquiry Officer that High Court had passed an order to give an opportunity to recall the witnesses examined after 7.8.90 and to complete the enquiry within three months. On 13.12.90 only one witness Mr. Chopra was present. There were certain discussion about the objection of petitioner and the case was adjourned to 14.12.90, but the petitioner had asked for a longer date and on the request of petitioner the case was adjourned to 17.12.90 at 11.30 am in the Branch Bichoon with the direction to petitioner to reach head office at 10.00 am as to accompany the Enquiry Officer to Bichoon. 6. 6. There is hardly any necessity to go into any other aspect of the case or any other point as in my opinion, matter rests only on the action taken after the order passed on 28.11.1990 in Civil Writ Petition No. 309/90 filed by the petitioner whereby a direction was given by this court to the effect that (i) the respondent bank shall cooperate with the petitioner in the proceedings of enquiry; (ii) that the respondent bank after completing all its evidence shall give an opportunity of defence to the petitioner; (iii) the petitioner shall be continued paying the subsistence allowance; (iv) that the petitioner shall be allowed to cross examine PWs witnesses recorded after 7.8.1990; and (v) that the petitioner shall be given the facility of going and coming to the place of enquiry i.e. Bichoon. 7. From the above direction as given by the High Court it is very clear (1) that the petitioner was to be awarded the opportunity of defence after the close of the evidence of the prosecution; (2) that the petitioner was to be given the opportunity of cross examining the witness of prosecution who were examined after 7.8.1990; and (3) that the facility was to be provided to him to reach the place of enquiry, Bichoon. 8. After the above-said order, the enquiry officer had fixed the date as on 13.12.1990 vide his letter dated 30.11.1990 at 11.30 a.m. at Bichun stating therein that as per the order of the High Court, the enquiry is fixed at Bichoon with a copy to the presenting officer for bringing the records. The petitioner had objected to fixing of date of 13th on certain grounds which was replied by the enquiry officer on 13.12.1990. However, from the proceedings there was an assembly of the enquiry at Bichun on which date there was only discussion about the objections and counter objections for supplying of documents etc. Only one witness i.e. Mr. Chopra, the "Branch Manager, was present. The case was adjourned to 17.12.1990 for further proceedings with the direction that the petitioner shall reach the Head Office at 10.00 A. M. and shall be taken to Bichun. On 17.12.1990 the petitioner could not reach the office at 10.00 a.m. with the result that the enquiry officer left without him for Bichoon. 9. The case was adjourned to 17.12.1990 for further proceedings with the direction that the petitioner shall reach the Head Office at 10.00 A. M. and shall be taken to Bichun. On 17.12.1990 the petitioner could not reach the office at 10.00 a.m. with the result that the enquiry officer left without him for Bichoon. 9. From the proceedings, no witness was present on 17.12.1990 for the purpose of cross examination as there is no such presence marked. The only matter discussed and noted in the proceedings of 17.12.1990 is that the enquiry officer had waited for him in the Head Office for bringing him to Bichoon but the delinquent official had not reached there with the result that the enquiry officer had to leave that place as to reach Bichoon at 11.30 a.m. The enquiry was closed with a direction to the prosecution to submit their written arguments for final decision of enquiry. 10. On 17.12.1990 itself the petitioner moved an application which was received at noon time in the bank that because of some medical problem, he was late by one hour to reach the bank for the purpose of enquiry and had requested that the enquiry be held on the next date i.e. 18.12.1990 at 11.00 a.m. which was replied by the enquiry officer vide letter dated 18.12.1990 itself which is on record. Not agreeing to his request for holding the enquiry, he had only given liberty to him to file the written brief in his defence. The petitioner again protested on 27.12.1990 which was replied by the enquiry officer on 1.1.1990 (sic 1.1.1991 ?) and ultimately the enquiry report was submitted and the petitioner was punished. 11. It seems that the respondent Bank and specially the enquiry officer had not learnt any lesson and even did not become wiser despite the repeated orders passed by this court in writ petitions filed by the delinquent official in this court. The last order dated 28.11.1990 r/w 12.12.1990 was very clear which was mandate to the enquiry officer to allow the petitioner to cross examine all the witnesses and after conclusion of the prosecution witness, allow the defence to be produced by the petitioner and to finish the enquiry within three months. The order was passed on 12.12.1990. The enquiry is held on 13.12.1990. The order was passed on 12.12.1990. The enquiry is held on 13.12.1990. There is no mention in the order fixing enquiry on 13.12.1990 that any of the prosecution witness would be examined. However, one Mr. Chopra was present on 13.12.1990. The case is adjourned to 17.12.1990. There is a discussion which is also written in the proceedings which are produced on record about the late coming of the petitioner. However, nothing has been mentioned in the order dated 17.12.1990 that any of the witnesses who were examined after 7.8.1990 were called for the purpose of cross examination, nor there is any material produced before the court to show that any such witnesses were ever summoned either for 13.12.1990 or for 17.12.1990. Admittedly, the witnesses were the non-official witnesses belonging to different villages who were connected with release and repayment of loans, details of which have been given above. There were as many as 12 witnesses who needed to be cross examined by the petitioner; But the enquiry officer out of anxiety to finish the enquiry against the petitioner dosed the evidence on 17.12.1990 itself on behalf of the prosecution and even did not write a word about the defence opportunity to the petitioner for producing the defence. The petitioner did reach the Head Office of the bank about an hour late and also moved an application immediately for permission to participate in the enquiry for the purpose of cross examining the witness and also to produce the evidence on 18.12.1990 i.e. next date which was rejected. Even though the High Court had given time to the enquiry officer to complete the exercise within three months, it is not understandable as to why the enquiry officer was in hurry and hastely closed the evidence by not calling the witnesses for cross examination and not allowing the witnesses for cross examination as directed by the High Court within 8 or 9 days of the order itself. The action of the enquiry officer cannot be said to be in accordance with law or spirit of order as passed by the High Court. Resultantly, all the proceedings after 13.12.1990 are to be vitiated as it amounted to total not complying with the orders of the High Court. Any consequential order passed after 17.12.1990 including the order of removal from service and appellate order cannot be sustained and are quashed. Resultantly, all the proceedings after 13.12.1990 are to be vitiated as it amounted to total not complying with the orders of the High Court. Any consequential order passed after 17.12.1990 including the order of removal from service and appellate order cannot be sustained and are quashed. The petitioner shall be entitled to all consequential reliefs. 12. In the circumstances, even though I would have allowed holding of enquiry as per direction given by the High Court on 28.11.1990 r/w 12.12.1990 for giving an opportunity to the petitioner for cross examining the witness and also producing the defence but in view of the fact that about 20 years have passed ever since the enquiry was started and the petitioner had filed as many as 5 writ petitions seeking one or other reliefs, in the circumstances it shall not be justified or appropriate or expedient now to allow the enquiry to continue any further after lapse of 20 years when the order of dismissal has been set aside in this writ petition as directed above.For the discussion and reasons mentioned above, the impugned order is quashed and the writ petition is allowed with costs of Rs. 2,000/-.Petition Allowed with costs. *******