Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 405 (GAU)

R. Lalthanzama v. Mizoram Rural Bank

2015-04-01

M.R.PATHAK

body2015
JUDGMENT M.R. Pathak, J. 1. Heard Mr. Zochhuana, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. T. Lalnunsiama, learned counsel for the respondents Mizoram Rural Bank. The petitioner, namely, R. Lalthanzama since 20.05.1985 was a regular employee of the Mizoram Rural Bank (hereinafter referred to as the said Bank). While he was serving as a Branch Manager of the said Bank in the Suangpuilawn Branch, on allegation of commission of serious act of misconduct which was detrimental to the interest of the Bank, the Chairman & Disciplinary Authority vide order under Ref. No. G-26/55 dated 13.11.2007, pending disciplinary proceedings, suspended the petitioner from service with effect from the said date (Annexure-III to the petition). 2. The respondent No. 2, the Chairman of the Bank being the Disciplinary Authority vide his Ref. No. G-25/994 dated 07.05.2008 issued a Show Cause Notice to the petitioner with the allegations/Articles of 2 (two) Charges that - (i) while the petitioner was working in the Suangpuilawn Branch of the said Bank, during the period from 28.02.2007 to 13.11.2007 allegedly misappropriated Rs. 9,11,700/- violating Regulation 19 & 38 of Mizoram Rural Bank (Officers & Employees) Service Regulations, 2003 and (ii) during the aforesaid period while serving in the said Branch of the Bank the petitioner allegedly withdrew Rs. 9,11,700/- from the closed SB Account No. 539 of Laldinsanga Khawlian on four occasions. Along with the said Show Cause Notice dated 07.05.2008, list of documents by which and list of documents by whom the said articles were proposed to be sustained were also enclosed. By the said Show Cause Notice the petitioner was informed that an inquiry has been contemplated under Regulation 38 of the Mizoram Rural Bank (Officers & Employees) Service Regulations, 2003 and directed him to submit his reply within 15 days from the date of the receipt of the said Memorandum and that the inquiry will be held only in respect of those articles of charges that are not admitted and as such he is required to specifically admit or deny each article of charges (Annexure-IV to the petition). Pursuant to the same, the petitioner on 21.05.2008 submitted his Show Cause Reply within time, which was duly received by the authority concerned. 3. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner on 21.05.2008 submitted his Show Cause Reply within time, which was duly received by the authority concerned. 3. The said Disciplinary Authority not being satisfied with the defence statement of the petitioner dated 21.05.2008 and on considering the matter, came to the conclusion that there are grounds for enquiring into the truth or otherwise of the charges alleged against the petitioner and accordingly vide Memorandum under Ref. No. G-26/111 dated 21.05.2008 ordered to hold a departmental enquiry to the alleged charges against him and appointed one Shri R.L. Chhuanthanga, Branch Manager of Aizawl Branch of the said Bank as the Enquiry Officer and appointed Smt. Lalchhuanawmi, Office Manager, of the Bank as Presenting Officer of the said departmental enquiry. By the said communication dated 21.05.2008 the petitioner was further informed that venue, date and time for holding the enquiry and recording of the enquiry proceeding will be fixed by the Enquiry Officer in due course which shall be intimated to him directly under the advice to Head Office (Annexure-V to the petition). 4. By the aforesaid said Memorandum dated 21.05.2008, the Disciplinary Authority also informed the petitioner that he will be given a fair and reasonable opportunity to produce his defence by oral and documentary evidences relevant to the charges, to cross examine any witnesses on whose evidence the charge rests and to examine witnesses in his defence in the prescribe manner in the course of the enquiry proceeding and by the said memorandum the petitioner was asked to arrange his own arrangements for production of his witnesses and defence documents at the enquiry and further, if he desire to produce any of Bank's records or examine any of Bank's employees as witness on his behalf, he was directed to informed the particulars of the records or the employees to the Enquiry Officer well in advance of the proposed date of enquiry or preferably as earliest possible after receipt of the said memorandum dated 21.05.2008 for his perusal and necessary action about the production of the documents and reliefs of the employee. The Disciplinary Authority by the aforesaid communication dated 21.05.2008 further informed the petitioner that if he desires he will be permitted to be defended by another officer of the Bank and for the same he is required to communicate the name of the person concerned, his designation and present place of posting hold by the said proposed defence representative to the Enquiry Officer at the earliest and also to furnish the said Enquiry Officer a written consent from his proposed defence representative that he is willing to defend his case so that the Enquiry Officer is able to intimate the Head Office for making his release arrangement well before the date fixed by him for the enquiry and made the petitioner aware that if he or his defence representative fails to appear in person before the Enquiry Officer on the date, time and venue fixed that is intimated to him by the Enquiry Officer or the petitioner or his defence representative refused or avoid to appear at the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer may hold ex-parte, without entering into any further correspondence with him regarding the said matter. 5. On 02.06.2008 for the first time, the inquiry proceeding with regard to the aforesaid disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner was held at 1:30 p.m. in the Chamber of the Branch Manager, Aizawl Branch of the Bank in presence of the above noted Inquiry Officer, the Presenting Officer and the Charged Officer, i.e. the petitioner herein. 6. On 02.06.2008 itself, the Inquiry Officer came to the conclusion that as the Charged Officer did not deny the charges and accepted the whole charges and therefore he considered that further inquiry is not required and accordingly concluded the said Inquiry Proceeding against the petitioner (Annexure-VI to the petition). The Inquiry Officer by his communication under Ref. No. Azl-25/BM-858 dated 20.10.2008 submitted the minute of the hearing and his findings before the Chairman & Disciplinary Authority of the Bank, holding that charge is found to be proved and forwarded a copy of the same to the petitioner for his information and necessary action (Annexure-VI to the petition). 7. The Inquiry Officer by his communication under Ref. No. Azl-25/BM-858 dated 20.10.2008 submitted the minute of the hearing and his findings before the Chairman & Disciplinary Authority of the Bank, holding that charge is found to be proved and forwarded a copy of the same to the petitioner for his information and necessary action (Annexure-VI to the petition). 7. After considering the enquiry report and as well as the enquiry proceedings and being satisfied that the enquiry was conducted properly in a fair and impartial manner giving full opportunities to the Charged Officer to put forth his defence at the enquiry and that the findings are based on the records of the enquiry proceedings came to a conclusion that there is a reasonable ground for holding that the misconduct was committed by the Charged Officer, i.e. the petitioner and accordingly, in terms of Regulation 381(b)(v) of Mizoram Rural Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2003; the Chairman and Disciplinary Authority vide Memorandum under Reference. No. G-26/743 dated 17.11.2008 inflicted the major punishment upon the Charged Officer, i.e. petitioner herein, dismissing him from service with immediate effect specifying that the period of suspension shall be treated as 'not on duty' informing him that if he desires, he may make an appeal to the Appellate Authority within 45 days from the date of receipt of the said memorandum against the said order of penalty mentioned above, as provided in Regulation Nos. 47, 48 and 49 of Mizoram Rural Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2003. But the petitioner did not prefer any appeal against his punishment order inflicted by the Disciplinary Authority vide Memorandum dated 17.11.2008 till date. 8. With regard to the same set of allegations, the Bank authority of Mizoram Rural Bank lodged an FIR before Darlawn Police Station on 08.02.2008 against the petitioner stating that between 28.06.2007 and 18.10.2007 the petitioner while working as the Branch Manager of the Suangpuilawn Branch of the Bank fraudulently withdrew Rs. 9,11,700/- from the Saving Banks Account No. 3/539 of one Laldinsanga by forging his signature, which was accordingly registered as Darlawn Police Station Case No. 6/2008 under Sections 419/420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code corresponding to the Criminal Trial No. 158/2008. 9,11,700/- from the Saving Banks Account No. 3/539 of one Laldinsanga by forging his signature, which was accordingly registered as Darlawn Police Station Case No. 6/2008 under Sections 419/420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code corresponding to the Criminal Trial No. 158/2008. The learned Trial Court, i.e. the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Aizawl Judicial District, Aizawl during the trial came to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the Accused/Defendant, i.e. the petitioner herein, committed the offence under Sections 419/420/468/471 IPC and accordingly finding the petitioner not guilty, vide Judgment and Order dated 14.09.2012 passed in the aforesaid Criminal Trial No. 158/2008 acquitted the petitioner for the charges made against him under said Sections 419/420/468/471 IPC and set him at liberty cancelling the bail bond and discharging surety. The State/Prosecution did not prefer an appeal against the said order of the learned Trial Court dated 14.09.2012 and as such it attained finality. 9. The petitioner on 31.12.2012 and 30.07.2013, after the aforesaid Judgment & Order of the learned Trial Court and on its finding dated 14.09.2012, approached the authority of the Mizoram Rural Bank for setting aside & quash the order of punishment dated 17.11.2008 and also to recall the same, that was imposed upon him by the Disciplinary Authority and to re-instate him in service of the Bank with full back wages and with all consequential service benefits, which according to petitioner was issued denying him justice during the course of contemplation of the Departmental Proceeding, following the acquittal in the Criminal Case by the learned Trial Court. 10. The Chairman/Disciplinary Authority of the said Bank vide communication under ref. No. CHM/Gen-31/92 dated 10.10.2013 after due consideration of the aforesaid representations of the petitioner dated 03.12.2012 and 30.07.2013, came to finding that there was no violation of the provisions of natural justice in the proceeding held against the petitioner and that the enquiry was conducted properly in fair and impartial manner and that the Disciplinary Authority concluded the proceeding against him and as no such grounds were found in his aforesaid representations for his re-instatement in service with its consequential benefits and accordingly rejected such prayer of the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition. 11. The respondents Bank Authority contested the matter by filing their affidavit-in-opposition and also produced the records of the case. Hence, this writ petition. 11. The respondents Bank Authority contested the matter by filing their affidavit-in-opposition and also produced the records of the case. The respondents stated that Mizoram Rural Bank has been constituted under the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 and in exercise of power conferred by Section 30 of the said 1976 Act and the Board of Directors of Mizoram Rural Bank Head Office, Aizawl, Mizoram after consultation with the State Bank of India being the sponsor Bank and the National Bank for Agricultural and Rural Development and with the previous sanction of the Central Government framed the Mizoram Rural Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2003 that came into force on 09.06.2003 after publication in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary, which was updated from time to time and by virtue of the said Regulations 2003, the Chairman of the Bank is authorised to initiate departmental proceedings against the officers and staff who are alleged to have been committed misconduct. The Respondents also stated that vide Regulation No. 47 of the said 2003 Regulations, right to appeal has been reserved, which expressly provided that (i) an officer or an employee shall have the right of appeal against any order under the Regulation which injuriously effects his interest and that (ii) the appeal shall be preferred to the Appellate Authority mentioned in Regulation 48 within 45 days of the date of receipt of the order appealed against. The Appellate Authority shall consider the appeal and passed suitable order preferably within a period of 6 months. The Respondents also stated that as per Regulation 48 of the said 2003 Regulations, an appeal shall lie: (i) to the Board where the Chairman of the Committee or Directors is the Competent Authority and (ii) to the Chairman where any other officers is the Competent Authority. 12. The Respondents also stated that as per Regulation 48 of the said 2003 Regulations, an appeal shall lie: (i) to the Board where the Chairman of the Committee or Directors is the Competent Authority and (ii) to the Chairman where any other officers is the Competent Authority. 12. The respondents Bank in their affidavit submitted that the petitioner was given reasonable opportunity to defend his case against the charges levelled against him, but in spite of that he admitted all the charges during the enquiry proceeding and therefore the Inquiry Officer accordingly gave his findings and after due consideration of such finding of the Inquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority accepted the same and inflicted the major penalty to the petitioner on 17.11.2008 against which the petitioner within the time prescribed did not prefer any statutory appeal before the Appropriate Authority as provided by the said 2003 Regulations. The main contention of the respondents Bank is that since the petitioner has miserably failed to get relief on the ground of non-submission of statutory appeal before the appropriate authority as provided by law, the writ petition preferred by the petitioner needs to be dismissed. 13. From the perusal of the Mizoram Rural Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2003; applicable in the present case, it is seen that Regulation 2(g) of the same defines 'Branch Manager' which reads as - 'Branch Manager' means an officer holding charge of a branch for the time being. Again Regulation 2(n) of the said Regulations defines 'Officer' - which means a person appointed to any of the post specified in Regulation 3(a)(1). Regulation 3 of said 2003 Regulations provides Classification of Officers and Employees of the Bank and Regulation 3(a) provides that the officers and employees of the Bank shall be classified as follows: (1) Group A-Officer Cadre (i) Scale I, (ii) Scale II, (iii) Scale III With designation in relation to any of the scales - (i) Officer, (ii) Branch Manager, (iii) Area Manager, (iv) Senior Manager and such other scales or designations as may be specified by the Board from time to time with the approval of the Central Government. Regulation 38 of the said Regulations provides for Penalties and it reads as- Without prejudice to foregoing Regulations of this Chapter an officer or employee who commits a breach of these Regulations or who displays negligence, inefficiency or indolence or who commits acts detrimental to the interests of the Bank or in conflict with its instructions, or who commits a breach of discipline or its guilty of any other acts of misconduct, shall be liable for any one or more penalties as prescribed hereinafter. I. Officers (a) Minor Penalties (i) Censure (ii) Withholding or stoppage of increments of pay with or without cumulative effect. (iii) Withholdings of promotion. (b) Major Penalties (i) Recovery from emoluments or such other amounts as may be due to him, of the whole or part or any pecuniary loss caused to the Bank by negligence or breach of orders. (ii) Reduction to a lower grade or post, or to a lower scale in a time scale. (iii) Compulsory retirement. (iv) Removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment. (v) Dismissal. Explanation: The following shall not amount to a penalty within the meaning of this Regulation: (i) withholding of one or more increments of an officer on account of his failure to pass a prescribed departmental test or examination in accordance with the terms of appointment to the post which he holds. (ii) stoppage of increment(s) of an officer at the efficiency bar in a time scale, on the grounds of his unfitness to cross the bar. (iii) not giving an officiating assignment or non-promotion of an Officer to a higher grade or post for which he may be eligible for consideration, but for which he is found unsuitable after consideration of his case. (iv) reserving or postponing the promotion of an Officer for reasons like completion of certain requirement for promotion or pendency of disciplinary proceedings. (v) reversion to a lower grade or post of an Officer officiating in a higher grade or post, on the ground that he is considered, after trail, to be unsuitable for such higher grade or post, or on administrative grounds unconnected with his conduct. (v) reversion to a lower grade or post of an Officer officiating in a higher grade or post, on the ground that he is considered, after trail, to be unsuitable for such higher grade or post, or on administrative grounds unconnected with his conduct. (vi) reversion to the previous grade or post of an Officer appointed on probation to another grade or post during or at the end of the period of probation, in accordance with the terms of his appointment or rules, or orders governing such probation. (vii) reversion of an Officer on deputation to his parent organisation. (viii) termination of service of an Officer (a) appointed in a temporary capacity otherwise than under a contract or agreement on the expiration of the period for which he was appointed, or earlier in accordance with the terms of his appointment. (b) appointed under a contract or agreement, in accordance with the terms of such contract or agreement, and (c) as part of retrenchment: Provided that where it is proposed to impose any of the minor penalties specified in sub-clause (i) to (iii) of clause (a) of this Regulation, the officer concerned shall be informed in writing of the imputations of lapses against him and given an opportunity to submit his written statement of defence within a specified period not exceeding 15 days or such extended period as may be granted by the Competent Authority and the defence statement, if any, submitted by the officer shall be taken into consideration by the Competent Authority before passing orders: Provided further that no order imposing any of the major penalties specified above shall be made except by an order in writing signed by the Competent Authority and no such order shall be passed without the charge or charges being formulated in writing and given to the officer and enquiry held so that he shall have reasonable opportunity to answer the charge or charges and defend himself. Provided also that an enquiry need not be held if: (i) the misconduct in such cases even if proved, the Bank does not intend to impose the punishment of removal or dismissal; and (ii) the Bank has issued a show caused notice to the officer advising him of the misconduct and the punishment for which he may be liable for such misconduct; and (iii) the officer makes a voluntary admission of his guilt in his reply to the aforesaid show caused notice. 14. From the records submitted by the respondents Bank, it is seen that the petitioner on 17.05.2008 submitted his reply to the Show Cause Notice dated 07.05.2008 (Annexure-IV), which the Disciplinary Authority received on 21.05.2008 and in his said show cause reply, the petitioner admitted the contents of both the Article of Charges Annexure I & II and stated that he will try to return all the outstanding amount. In his said reply, the petitioner also stated that some people deceived him and he regrets what he had done. 15. Going through the said reply of the petitioner and not being satisfied with it, the Disciplinary Authority decided to hold the departmental enquiry and accordingly appointed Inquiry Officer & Presenting Officer with regard to the alleged charges levelled against the petitioner, by giving him a reasonable opportunity to answer the said charges and to defend him. But during the inquiry, the petitioner accepted the charges in the first stage itself and stated that he repaid Rs. 80,000/- on 18.07.2007 and thereby admitted his guilt. Thereafter, the Inquiry Officer submitted his Inquiry Report on 20.10.2008, with a copy to the petitioner. 16. The Disciplinary Authority, on consideration of the Inquiry Report and the inquiry proceeding, vide his order dated 17.11.2008 imposed major penalty upon the petitioner, dismissing him from service with immediate effect, but made him aware that he can prefer appeal against the said order of penalty imposed upon him before the Appellate Authority within 45 days from the receipt of the said order, which the petitioner did not avail until. It is only when the petitioner was acquitted by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Aizawl Judicial District, Aizawl vide Judgment & Order dated 14.09.2012 passed in Criminal Trial No. 158/2008 arising out Darlawn P.S. Case No. 6/2008 under Sections 419/420/468/471 IPC, which was registered against the petitioner for the same misconduct for which a separate departmental enquiry was conducted by the said Bank as stated above; the petitioner on 03.12.2012 approached the Bank authority, i.e. the Chairman & Disciplinary Authority for the first time after his dismissal from service only for setting aside and to quash the dismissal order dated 17.11.2008 and to reinstate him in service with all consequential benefits on the ground of denial of justice during the course of departmental proceeding. 17. From the perusal of records of the de part mental proceeding, no such infirmity was found during the inquiry proceeding with regard to violation of established principles of law and it is not the case of the petitioner that he was not given chances to defend the charges levelled against him and on the other hand he admitted all the charges against him, in his show cause reply as well as in the departmental enquiry. Moreover, the petitioner did not avail the benefit of appeal provision, in spite of the fact that he was informed about the same by the Disciplinary Authority itself while dismissing the petitioner from service on 17.11.2008 and such appeal was required to be filed by the petitioner within 45 days from the receipt of the order he is aggrieved with as per the statutory provisions of the Mizoram Rural Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2003. It is a settled law that when a statute provides for law of limitation, compliance therewith is mandatory and there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that a statute of limitation should receive strict construction. Further, the Chairman and the Disciplinary Authority though acts/performs statutorily under the said 2003 Regulations of the Bank, but in absence any relaxation clause in the said 2003 Regulations, the delay in preferring appeal said period of 45 days cannot be enlarged. As the said 2003 Regulations do not provide for any relaxation clause, therefore, the delay in preferring appeal, beyond the period of 45 days, against an order passed under said Regulations 2003 which injuriously affects any appellant's interest, cannot be condoned and/or enlarged. 18. As the said 2003 Regulations do not provide for any relaxation clause, therefore, the delay in preferring appeal, beyond the period of 45 days, against an order passed under said Regulations 2003 which injuriously affects any appellant's interest, cannot be condoned and/or enlarged. 18. With the case in hand the Bank authority went ahead with both a criminal proceeding as well as its own departmental proceeding for the same misconduct against the petitioner for allegedly withdrawing and mis-appropriating Rs. 9,11,700/- from a closed SB Account on four occasions while serving as a Branch Manager during the period from 28.02.2007 to 13.11.2007 violating the provisions of said 2003 Bank Regulations. In the said criminal case, the petitioner was acquitted, whereas in the departmental proceeding, the petitioner has been dismissed from service. With regard to departmental enquiry and acquittal in criminal case, Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of cases have settled the law that the "departmental proceedings can be conducted simultaneously to the criminal trial". The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Divisional Controller, Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Vs. M.G. Vittal Rao reported in (2012) 1 SCC 442 discussed most of the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the legal principle settled by the said judgments with regard to the issue of departmental enquiry and acquittal in criminal case and following the same Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the legal principles as follows- (a) There is no legal bar for both proceedings to go on simultaneously. (b) The only valid ground for claiming that the disciplinary proceedings may be stayed would be to ensure that the defence of the employee in the criminal case may not be prejudiced. But even such grounds would be available only in cases involving complex questions of facts and law. (c) Such defence ought not to be permitted to unnecessarily delay the departmental proceedings. The interest of the delinquent officer as well as the employer clearly lies in a prompt conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings and (d) Departmental proceedings can go on simultaneously to the criminal trial, except where both the proceedings are based on the same set of facts and the evidence in both the proceedings is common. 19. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Samar Bahadur Singh Vs. 19. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Samar Bahadur Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., reported in (2011) 9 SCC 94 has settled the principle of law that: "acquittal in the criminal case shall have no bearing or relevance to the facts of the departmental proceedings as the standard of proof in both the cases are totally different and in a criminal case, the prosecution has to prove the criminal case beyond all reasonable doubt, whereas in a departmental proceedings, the department has to prove only preponderance of probabilities." 20. Coming back to the present case it is seen that Sub-Regulation (iii) to the third proviso of the Regulation 38(I)(b) of the said 2003 Regulations of the Bank provides that: "with regard to Major Penalties, if the Charged officer makes a voluntary' admission of his guilt in his reply to the show cause notice, than an enquiry need not be held". Here, the petitioner in his Show Cause Reply dated 07.05.2008, received by the Disciplinary Authority on 21.05.2008, has admitted his guilt. But the Chairman & the Disciplinary Authority vide his Memorandum dated 21.05.2008 did not accept petitioner's said show cause reply and initiated departmental enquiry by appointing Inquiry Officer and presenting Officer as stated above. By the said Memorandum dated 21.05.2008, the petitioner/charged officer was also informed that he will be given a fair & reasonable opportunity to produce his defence by oral and documentary evidences, to cross examine any departmental witnesses on whose evidence the charge rests and to examine his defence witnesses and defence documents during the enquiry and further to produce any of Bank's records or to examine any of Bank's employees as witness on his behalf and was also permitted to be defended by another officer of the Bank as defence assistant/defence representative. However, the Inquiry Officer in its proceeding on 02.06.2008 itself considered that further inquiry is not required since the Charged Officer did not deny the charges and accepted the whole charges and submitted the Inquiry Report holding that the charged against the petitioner have been proved, which is not in conformity with the above noted Memorandum dated 21.05.2008 issued by the Disciplinary Authority. 21. Said 2003 Regulations of the Bank provides that enquiry need not be held if the officer makes a voluntary admission of his guilt in his reply to the show cause notice. 21. Said 2003 Regulations of the Bank provides that enquiry need not be held if the officer makes a voluntary admission of his guilt in his reply to the show cause notice. After rejecting petitioner's show cause reply, wherein the said Charged Officer admitted his guilt, the Disciplinary Authority decided to hold the departmental enquiry and as such the Inquiry Officer, on mere admission of the guilt by the petitioner/Charged Officer on the initial day of the inquiry, cannot come to a decision that further inquiry is not required since the petitioner/Charged Officer did not deny the charges and accepted the whole charges. Whether to hold inquiry or not, the discretion lies with the Competent Authority, i.e. the Disciplinary Authority as per said 2003 Regulations of the Bank and once the said Disciplinary Authority rejected the show cause reply containing the admission of guilt & acceptance of the alleged charges by the charged officer/petitioner herein and by using his discretionary power the Disciplinary Authority decided to hold the departmental enquiry as specified in the aforesaid Memorandum dated 21.05.2008; the Inquiry Officer, on the admission of guilt of the same allegations/Articles by the Charged Officer once again during the inquiry, cannot consider and hold that further inquiry is not required, since the said decision of the Inquiry Officer is based on surmises and conjectures only and therefore, the Inquiry Report dated 20.10.2008 of the said the Inquiry Officer holding that charges against the petitioner found to be proved is bad in law, as the petitioner has been deprived from a fair trial as specified by the Disciplinary Authority in his Memorandum dated 21.05.2008 (Annexure-V). 22. A Constitution Bench/five Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad Saxena Vs. State of Madhya Bharat (now Madhya Pradesh), reported in AIR 1961 SC 1070 has held that "the departmental enquiry is not an empty formality; it is a serious proceeding intended to give the officer concerned a chance to meet the charge and to prove his innocence. In the absence of any such enquiry, it would not be fair to strain facts against the appellant and to hold that in view of the admissions made by him the enquiry would have served no useful purpose. In the absence of any such enquiry, it would not be fair to strain facts against the appellant and to hold that in view of the admissions made by him the enquiry would have served no useful purpose. That is a matter of speculation which is wholly out of place in dealing with cases of orders passed against public servants terminating their services." 23. From the facts and circumstances stated above, the Court found that the impugned decision of the Chairman & Disciplinary Authority of the Bank, respondent No. 2 under Ref. No. G-26/743 dated 17.11.2008 dismissing the petitioner from service of the Bank with immediate effect, on the basis of said finding of the Inquiry Officer in his Inquiry Report communicated under Ref. No. Azl-25/BM-858 dated 20.10.2008 is perverse and illegal. Consequently, the order of the Chairman, respondent No. 2 under Ref. No. CHM/GEN-31/92 dated 10.10.2013 is also bad in law. 24. From the above, the Court is of the view that prejudice has been caused to the petitioner as a result of the respondent's failure to hold an enquiry against him in a fair manner. Accordingly, the decision of the Inquiry Officer in his Inquiry Report communicated under Ref. No. Azl-25/BM-858 dated 20.10.2008, the impugned decision of the Chairman & Disciplinary Authority of the Bank, respondent No. 2 under Ref. No. G-26/743 dated 17.11.2008 and the consequential order of the Chairman of the respondent Bank under Ref. No. CHM/GEN-31/92 dated 10.10.2013 are set aside and quashed. The respondents Bank authority shall initiate a fresh inquiry proceeding from the stage of holding the inquiry and recording of the inquiry proceeding by the Inquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer in terms of the Memorandums under Ref. Nos. G. 26/55 dated 07.05.2008 and G-26/111 dated 21.05.2008 respectively, issued by the Chairman & Disciplinary Authority of Mizoram Rural Bank, Aizawl, Mizoram, respondent 2. However, the Chairman & Disciplinary Authority of Mizoram Rural Bank, Aizawl, Mizoram is at liberty to appoint fresh Inquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer for the said departmental enquiry dawn against the petitioner. 25. Nos. G. 26/55 dated 07.05.2008 and G-26/111 dated 21.05.2008 respectively, issued by the Chairman & Disciplinary Authority of Mizoram Rural Bank, Aizawl, Mizoram, respondent 2. However, the Chairman & Disciplinary Authority of Mizoram Rural Bank, Aizawl, Mizoram is at liberty to appoint fresh Inquiry Officer and the Presenting Officer for the said departmental enquiry dawn against the petitioner. 25. The petitioner shall submit the certified copy of this order before the Chairman, Mizoram Rural Bank, Aizawl, Mizoram on/or before 24.04.2015 and shall obtain necessary receipt to that extent and the respondents on receipt of the said certified copy from the petitioner or his authorised and/or legal representative shall complete the said disciplinary proceeding drawn against the petitioner within 31.08.2015. The Inquiry Officer so appointed shall duly inform the petitioner about the venue, date and time of holding the inquiry and the petitioner shall not delay the inquiry proceeding in any other manner. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this petition stands allowed. No order as to costs.