Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 1263 (PAT)

Uday Shankar Varma v. State Bank Of India

2003-12-05

R.S.GARG

body2003
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Undisputedly the petitioner was chargesheeted on as many as eight charges. The enquiry officer found that charge no. 2 and 4 were partially proved while the other charges were fully proved. After receiving the report from the enquiry officer a notice was given to the petitioner to submit his say in the matter. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply, however, vide Annexure-3, a final order was passed by the disciplinary authority on 2nd November, 1998. In the final order the disciplinary authority has observed that though the enquiry officer has found that the charge no.2 and 4 were partially proved but in the opinion of the disciplinary authority the charge no.2 was fully proved. Giving the reasons for its disagreement he proceeded further in the matter and awarded the punishment of dismissal from service. Thereafter the matter was taken up in the appeal, the appellate forum simply said that the dismissal from service would be treated as removal from service. Thereafter the matter was agitated before the Review Committee but as the review proved futile the petitioner is before this Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the disciplinary authority was disagreeing with the findings recorded by the enquiry officer then in accordance with the trite law it was obliged to provide the reasons to the petitioner before imposing the order of punishment or recording a finding different from what was recorded by the enquiry officer. It is also submitted that non-issuance of the notices to the petitioner would lead to breach of the principles of natural justice, as this Court and the Supreme Court are consistent in their view that before recording the disagreement with the findings of the enquiry officer the disciplinary authority is obliged to provide the reasons/reasonings to the delinquent officer. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the principles of natural justice can not be defined as a straight jacket formula and the principles would change looking to the nature of the dispute. According to him even if the finding recorded on charge no.2 is taken to be partially proved then too the decision of the disciplinary authority would have been the same. According to him even if the finding recorded on charge no.2 is taken to be partially proved then too the decision of the disciplinary authority would have been the same. He also submitted that the petitioner was given proper opportunity at every stage and step and if he has not exploited the same right in time he can not be allowed to raise this dispute in the writ Court. 5. The Supreme Court in the matter of Punjab National Bank vs. Kunj Bihari Mishra (1998)7 SCC 84 has observed that if the disciplinary authority is disagreeing with the findings recorded by the enquiry authority/officer then before revising the findings finally it has to issue a notice to the delinquent officer. This Court has observed that in a given case a composite notices revising findings and proposing punishments would be bad. Similar is a view taken by me in the matter of Madan Sharma vs. The State of Bihar 2003(3) PLJR 665 . A Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 792 of 1999 has also taken a similar view. 6. Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances the proved facts and the settled law I am of the opinion that the disciplinary authority could not revise the findings recorded on charge no.2 and simultaneously award the punishment. Under the law it was obliged to issue a notice to the delinquent officer that being in disagreement with the findings recorded by the enquiry officer it proposes to revise the findings and as such the petitioner may make his submissions on that point. As the procedure adopted by the respondents has vitiated the results, the orders passed by the disciplinary authority, the appellate authority and Review Committee are set aside. It would be open to the respondents to proceed further in the matter. If the disciplinary authority is of the opinion that it can revise the findings on the charge no. 2 and 4 or either of the charge then it shall issue a notice to the petitioner to submit his comments on the proposed findings. After the petitioners replies are considered the disciplinary authority may record its findings and may issue a second show cause. The petitioner or his authorised agent shall appear before the disciplinary authority on 19th December, 2003. Within 15 days of the supply of the notice the petitioner may submit his reply. After the petitioners replies are considered the disciplinary authority may record its findings and may issue a second show cause. The petitioner or his authorised agent shall appear before the disciplinary authority on 19th December, 2003. Within 15 days of the supply of the notice the petitioner may submit his reply. It would, however, be for the petitioner to appear or not to appear, however, if he or his authorised agent does not appear on 19th December, 2003 ther the disciplinary authority may proceed make a final order and if despite receipt of the notice proposing revision of findings the petitioner or his authorised agent do not file their reply then too the disciplinary authority shall be free to pass his orders. The petition to the extent indicated above is allowed. 7. Let a copy of this order be supplied to both the parties.