Judgment : L. Narasimha Reddy, J. The sole respondent herein is an employee of the 1st appellant-Bank. He worked as Manager of Patighanpur Branch of Medak District between 22-05-1987 and 21-02-1990. A charge-sheet was issued to him on 21-01-1995, alleging irregularities during his tenure at Patighanpur, particularly in respect of the account of a customer, by name, M/s Geekay Wires Pvt. Ltd. The respondent submitted his explanation, denying the charges. The appellants were not satisfied with the explanation and accordingly an Enquiry Officer was appointed. In the course of enquiry, the respondent intended to examine several witnesses and relied upon certain documents. He accordingly furnished a list of witnesses and documents. The enquiry officer, however, permitted the respondent to examine only one witness, by name, Devadanam, the Manager of the concerned Branch, at the time of enquiry. A representation was made on 05-12-1997, reiterating the request, seeking permission to examine the other witnesses. That was rejected by the enquiry officer on 28-07-1998. The enquiry officer submitted a report, holding that the charges against the respondent are proved. The report was accepted by the Appointing Authority. An order was passed on 09-08-1999, imposing the penalty of reduction of pay by 8 stages for a period of one year, with cumulative effect. Departmental appeal preferred by the respondent was dismissed on 04-12-2000. Thereupon, the respondent filed W.P.No.4965 of 2001. One of the grounds urged by him was that there was clear violation of the principles of natural justice in the departmental enquiry. The writ petition was allowed on 19-09-2007, by a learned single Judge, and the order of punishment was set aside. It was left open to the appellants to proceed against the respondent, duly giving reasonable opportunity. The appellants filed Writ Appeal No.1647 of 2008, against the order passed by the learned single Judge. The writ appeal was allowed on 13-12-2008, on the ground that the learned single Judge, who allowed the writ petition, did not take into account, the purport of Regulation 6(10)(b)(ii) of the UCO Bank Officer Employees’ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (for short ‘the Regulations), and the matter was remanded for fresh consideration and disposal. After such remand, the writ petition was allowed, through order dated 19-12-2013. After such remand, the writ petition was allowed, through order dated 19-12-2013. It was observed that the respondent mentioned the relevance of each witness, proposed to be examined by him and the purpose thereof, and that the denial of permission by the enquiry officer to examine those witnesses resulted in violation of principles of natural justice, apart from violation of Regulations. It was left open to the appellants to proceed with the enquiry in accordance with the relevant Regulations. Sri E. Sambasiva Pratap, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the charges framed against the respondent are serious in nature, and that the departmental enquiry was conducted in accordance with the Regulations. He submits that though the only witness, whose evidence is relevant is that of the Manager of the concerned Branch, the respondent insisted on examining six more witnesses, that included very senior officials of the Bank, and that the enquiry officer furnished valid reasons, while rejecting the request. Learned counsel submits that the defect, pointed out by the Division Bench of this Court, which allowed W.A.No.1647 of 2008, is repeated in the order under the present appeal. Sri B. Nalin Kumar, leaned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that in his letter dated 19-11-1997, the respondent not only furnished the list of witnesses, proposed to be examined by him, but also the precise purpose for which each witness is required to be examined. He contends that it is the superior officials in the Administration Bank, that sanctioned the credit limits to the customer, in question, and if there were any irregularities in such sanction, the authority, which sanctioned the loan, or limits, alone would be competent to answer. He submits that the enquiry officer acted in a highly partisan manner and made every effort to cover up the lapses of the officers’ concerned. Learned counsel submits that the denial of permission to examine 6, out of 7 witnesses, would certainly constitute a clear violation of principles of natural justice, and that no exception can be taken to the order under appeal. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondent, alleging certain irregularities. The Regulations prescribe the procedure, to be followed in such matters. The obligation to conduct a departmental enquiry arises, only when the disciplinary authority intends to impose a major penalty. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the respondent, alleging certain irregularities. The Regulations prescribe the procedure, to be followed in such matters. The obligation to conduct a departmental enquiry arises, only when the disciplinary authority intends to impose a major penalty. Obviously for that reason, the disciplinary authority appointed an enquiry officer, to inquire into the charges and submit a report. The charge-sheet issued against the respondent is a detailed one, but is in relation to the acts and omissions on the part of the respondent, while dealing with the account of a customer, by name, M/s Geekay Wires Pvt. Ltd. A perusal of the statement of allegations discloses that, a) between 1984 and 1986, the Divisional Manager of the Bank sanctioned cash credit (hypothecation) of Rs.2.75 lakhs, and cash credit (pledge) of Rs.1 lakh, and the respondent did not make proper verification of the securities, that were offered against the facility; b) the SSI & SB department of the head office, sanctioned interim packing credit limit of Rs.40 lakhs to the customer against lodgment of letter of credit/firm order, on an improper recommendation made by the respondent; and c) the customer, which was a propriety concern, upgraded itself as a private limited company, and the credit limits were sanctioned by the head office up to Rs.96 lakhs, and that the proposals were made by the respondent, without proper verification. Ultimately it was pointed out that a sum of Rs.64,53,000/- remained outstanding by 26-10-1993 from the customer and this was on account of the careless, negligent and reckless manner in which the respondent handled the account at the initial stages, while recommending higher limits, without proper enquiries about the credibility of the promoters. Nowhere in the charge-sheet it was pointed out that the respondent had sanctioned any amount, by himself. The question as to whether any superior official was misled by the respondent, while sanctioning credit limits, naturally would need the depositions of the officer, who sanctioned the limits, or the one, who can speak about it. Regulation 6 deals with the procedure to be followed in the disciplinary proceedings. It places an obligation on the disciplinary authority as well as the enquiry officer to furnish a list of witnesses and the documents, which they propose to rely upon, to prove the charges. Equally, the charged officer is conferred with a right to examine the witnesses in his defence. It places an obligation on the disciplinary authority as well as the enquiry officer to furnish a list of witnesses and the documents, which they propose to rely upon, to prove the charges. Equally, the charged officer is conferred with a right to examine the witnesses in his defence. Rule 6(10), which deals with this aspect, reads as under: (a) “The inquiring authority shall where the officer employee does not admit all or any of the articles of charge, furnish to such officer employee a list of documents by which, and a list of witnesses by whom, the articles of charge are proposed to be proved. b) The inquiring authority shall also record an order that the officer employee may for the purpose of preparing his defence--- (i) inspect within five days of the order or within such further time not exceeding five days as the inquiring authority may allow, the documents listed; (ii) submit a list of documents and witnesses that he wants for the inquiry; (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 in item (ii). Note: The relevancy of the documents and the examination of the witnesses referred to in item (ii) shall be given by the officer employee concerned.” It is important to note that except that the employee is placed under obligation to mention the relevance of the documents, proposed to be relied upon, and the witnesses proposed to be examined, the enquiry officer is not conferred with any power to decide upon the issue of relevance. Rule 6(16) reads under: “Rule 6(16): The evidence on behalf of the officer employees shall then be produced. The officer employee may examine himself in his own behalf, if he so prefers. The witnesses produced by the officer employee shall then be examined by the officer employee and may be cross-examined by the Presenting Officer. Rule 6(16) reads under: “Rule 6(16): The evidence on behalf of the officer employees shall then be produced. The officer employee may examine himself in his own behalf, if he so prefers. The witnesses produced by the officer employee shall then be examined by the officer employee and may be cross-examined by the Presenting Officer. The officer employee shall be entitled to re-examine any of his witnesses on any points on which they have been cross-examined, but not on any new matter without the leave of the inquiring authority.” The Division Bench of this Court, which dealt with this case earlier, proceeded on the assumption that the respondent did not mention the relevance of the witnesses, proposed to be examined, by him. It appears that neither the respondent, nor the appellants herein have verified the record carefully. A perusal of the record discloses that through his letter dated 19-11-1997, addressed to the enquiry officer, the respondent enclosed a list of 7 witnesses, and a list of 45 documents. The list of witnesses is not just the one, of names of the persons, proposed to be examined. The purpose for which each witness is proposed to be examined was clearly mentioned. The same is evident from a mere perusal of the list, which reads, “LIST OF WITNESSES FOR DEFENCE IN THE CUSTODY OF MANAGEMENT: 1. Shri Rashid Mannon, DCO (Credit) during the relevant period, presently Senior Manager B/o Koti, Hyderabad— To speak on processing the proposal, going to H.O. accompanied by the undersigned for discussions with General Manager (Credit) guiding the branch, monitoring the account, passing on the instructions from time to time at their own, that of ZO, Bangalore and H.O. 2. Shri N.B. Surti, ACO (Credit) during the relevant period, presently understood to be in Z.O. Bombay— To speak as in case of No.1 plus on guidance given in the preparation of the proposal and on the discussions with the Party over their request for alleged cross-transfers. 3. Sri R. Rama Murthy, Successor Manager, presently ACO (Credit) Regional Office, Hyderabad – to speak on the outstandings alleged to have become sticky, issuance of NOC to the party, submission of revised proposal, conduct and supervision of the account before and after it became sticky. 4. 3. Sri R. Rama Murthy, Successor Manager, presently ACO (Credit) Regional Office, Hyderabad – to speak on the outstandings alleged to have become sticky, issuance of NOC to the party, submission of revised proposal, conduct and supervision of the account before and after it became sticky. 4. Shri Vinay Parikh, DCO (Credit) at ZO Bangalore during the relevant period, presently understood to be Senior Manager B/o Deesha – to speak on process of the proposal, monitoring account, submission of various proposals in the party’s account, requisitioning various informations and follow-up of various instructions of their own and that of H.O., circumstances leading to issuance of NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE to approach other banks for finance; since he had accompanied various officials from ZO & HO as Shri RA Bagaria, R. Gangadharan and SB Khaldelwal, the then ZMs and DM are out of the country and as the Charge-sheet claims immunity to the actions and inactions of Z.O. 5. Shri N.V.V. Rao, Divisional Manager, Hyderabad, during the relevant period, presently the Asstt. General Manager (Credit) Head Office – To speak on the proposal, instructions given for excess drawings in the a/c of Geekay Wire Industries, instructions given to the undersigned to accompany the D.C.O. Credit to go to H.O. for discussions with the General Manager (Credit) and other instructions given to monitor and follow-up of the account since the Charge-sheet proclaims immunity to the role of DO & ZO. 6. Shri Devadanam, the present Manager of B/o Patighanpur –To speak on the release of mortgaged documents, lifting of charge with R.O.C., Closure of Party’s accounts and issuance of NO DUES CERTIFICATE. 7. Shri P. Vijaya Kumar, D.C.O. Inspection, during the relevant period and presently understood to be Senior Manager of B/o Port Blair, who conducted investigation in pursuance of an anonymous complaint dt.10.8.93 and submitted the report which is the reflection of the Charge-sheet and also envisages to nullify the role of DO and ZO”. One cannot expect a more detailed purpose of examination and relevance of witnesses than this. On receipt of the list of witnesses, through a covering letter, the enquiry officer addressed a letter dated 28-11-1997, which reads: “UCO BANK ZONAL OFFICE, BHOPAL ENQ/MVS/LSR/142 28TH November, 1997. Mr.L.S.R. Murthy Manager UCO Bank Bhind Branch Dear Sir, Sub: Enquiry relating to the charge-sheet bearing No.SZ/VIG/95/568 dated 21.01.95 issued to you. On receipt of the list of witnesses, through a covering letter, the enquiry officer addressed a letter dated 28-11-1997, which reads: “UCO BANK ZONAL OFFICE, BHOPAL ENQ/MVS/LSR/142 28TH November, 1997. Mr.L.S.R. Murthy Manager UCO Bank Bhind Branch Dear Sir, Sub: Enquiry relating to the charge-sheet bearing No.SZ/VIG/95/568 dated 21.01.95 issued to you. I have received today (i.e.28.11.97) your letter dated 19/11/97 along with the list of witnesses and list of documents, submitted through and received under cover of Bhind Branch letter No. NIL dated 19/11/97. In this context, I wish to inform that the charges leveled against you vide the captioned charge-sheet are very specific and relevancy shown by you relating to the witnesses is vague and more irrelevant, as:- (1) Shri Rashid Mannon, DCO (Credit):- to speak on processing the proposal….That of Zonal Office Bangalore and Head Office The above submission regarding relevancy of the witness is vague and as such is totally irrelevant. Above submission has nothing to do with the specific charges levelled against CSO. Further, in respect of witnesses nos.2 to 5, I observe that the relevancy shown is nothing but the repetition of the relevancy shown in case of witness No.1. In no way it justifies the production of witnesses, such as, going to Head Office accompanied with the CSO, guidance given in preparation of proposal, to speak on processes of proposal, monitoring the account, subject witness (Mr. Vinay Parikh) had accompanied various officials from Zonal Office & Head Office as Shri Gangadharan, Shri R.A. BAGARIA, AND Shri S.B. Khandelwal instruction given to the CSO to accompany DCO (Credit) to go Head Office for discussions with General Manger (Credit). Further, the witness of Shri Devadanam to speak on mortgage documents etc. has no substance to the charge sheet. Under the circumstances I do not find any justification in permitting you to produce the witness of S.No.1 to 5. The charge relating to release of mortgaged property is very specific, while the relevancy of Mr. Devadanam over the same is vague and not specific. To consider the admittance of the witness of Shri Devadanam, please submit the specific relevancy over the release of the mortgaged property etc. I reserve my ruling for allowing the witness of Shri P. Vijaykumar. Further, on perusing the list of documents, I observe that you have not shown the relevancy of any documents demanded by you. To consider the admittance of the witness of Shri Devadanam, please submit the specific relevancy over the release of the mortgaged property etc. I reserve my ruling for allowing the witness of Shri P. Vijaykumar. Further, on perusing the list of documents, I observe that you have not shown the relevancy of any documents demanded by you. You are therefore advised to show the relevancy specifically pertaining to the charges leveled against you vide the said charge-sheet. You are directed to submit the list of documents showing relevancy of each and every document demanded by you on or before 08/12/97 so that after considering the relevancy I may direct the Presenting Officer to produce the same immediately. Yours faithfully, (M.V.SHIVARKAR) INQUIRING AUTHORITY” A perusal of this discloses that the enquiry officer thought or felt himself to be the ultimate administrator of the bank, and he carried with himself, the position held by him in the bank. There is hardly any trace of fairness and impartiality in his approach. He made every effort to exhibit his obedience to the administration of the bank. It appears that he was totally ignorant about the basic tenets of a departmental enquiry. The disciplinary authority, if he were to have conducted enquiry, by himself, would have been more reasonable and sensible. The enquiry officer was totally insensitive to the issues involved and pre-judged the issue, right at the threshold. It was not at all for him, as to what should be the defence, and who should be the witnesses, that must be examined in defence. The requirement under the Regulations, to furnish the relevance was, to ensure that an indiscriminate list, bereft of any purpose, is not furnished, just to scuttle the enquiry. Once the relevance of a witness is mentioned, the Regulations stand complied with. The enquiry officer is not at all conferred with the power to give a ‘ruling’ about allowing witnesses. The fact that the enquiry officer felt himself all powerful, is evident, when he said “I reserve my ruling for allowing the witness of Sri Vijay Kumar”. The underlined paragraph in the letter would only demonstrate the fancy and arrogance, which, the enquiry officer was enjoying on entertaining, by using fanciful expressions. One of the hallmarks of a proper and lawful enquiry is giving an opportunity to the effected party. The underlined paragraph in the letter would only demonstrate the fancy and arrogance, which, the enquiry officer was enjoying on entertaining, by using fanciful expressions. One of the hallmarks of a proper and lawful enquiry is giving an opportunity to the effected party. Even where the relevant provisions of law are silent on this aspect, the requirement is mandatory. An indictment of an individual, whether an ordinary citizen or an employee, without giving him a reasonable opportunity would become illegal on that account alone, and without the necessity of demonstrating any other violation. Examination of witnesses, be it, by the department, or by the charged employee, is an important facet of the enquiry. Bereft of the oral or documentary evidence, the proceedings partake the character of mere allegation and denial, which, in turn, does not lead the matter any further. As observed earlier, the requirement under Rule 6(10), to indicate the relevance of the proposed witnesses, is to avoid indiscriminate naming of persons as witnesses. Beyond that, it has no other purpose to serve. If the intention of the rule making authority was to confer the power upon the enquiry officer to verify or to undertake a mini-adjudication as to the relevance of witnesses, specific provision would have been incorporated in the Regulation. Secondly, a perusal of Rule 10-A discloses that the enquiring authority shall furnish a list of documents and list of witnesses by which the articles of charge are proposed to prove. There is not even a mention that the list of witnesses to be furnished by the enquiry officer must indicate the relevance of witnesses, much less it is subject to scrutiny by anyone. If that is the facility given to the department or the appointing authority, the delinquent employee cannot be placed at a disadvantageous position, much less he can be placed at the mercy of the enquiry officer. The denial of permission to the respondent by the enquiry officer, to examine as many as 6 witnesses, was nothing but a clear and blatant violation of principles of natural justice, apart from breach of Regulation 6 itself. Strictly speaking, an order, which is passed in violation of principles of natural justice is void, and the order must end with the setting aside the order of punishment, passed against the respondent. Strictly speaking, an order, which is passed in violation of principles of natural justice is void, and the order must end with the setting aside the order of punishment, passed against the respondent. However, the Supreme Court evolved certain methods in this behalf, lest, lapses in the disciplinary proceedings particularly, where serious charges are framed, become a boon to the employee. Directions were issued to the effect that, in case any serious defect has crept into the departmental enquiry, and the orders of punishment suffer on account of it, the proceedings must be resumed from that stage, duly setting aside the order of punishment; lest the public interest suffers. Reference in this context may be made, to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Managing Director, E.C.I.L. v. B. Karunakar(1994 SCC supl.(2) 391). The view taken by the learned single Judge accords with this, and we do not find any basis to interfere with the same. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.