Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 127 (RAJ)

Tivesh Meena v. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur

2016-01-19

M.N.BHANDARI

body2016
JUDGMENT : M.N. Bhandari, J. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the writ petition is heard finally. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by initiation of enquiry afresh and letter received for it on 01st October. 2014. 3. Learned counsel submits that after a charge sheet and enquiry, a report favourable to the petitioner was submitted but without supplying copy of the report, a decision was taken by the respondents to sent it for a fresh enquiry. No order for it was conveyed to the petitioner or seems to have been passed by the respondents, thus they have not followed the procedure for disciplinary action. In view of the above, fresh enquiry and notices for it deserves to be set aside. 4. It is further stated that after conclusion of enquiry, a fresh charge sheet indicating the same charges could not have been given by the respondents but deviating from the procedure and in violation of principle of natural justice, same charges have been repeated for the fresh enquiry, for which, earlier enquiry was held with favourable report. Thus, the respondents have violated the procedure. The charge sheet dated 21st November, 2013 also deserves to be quashed in view of the above. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents has contested the petition. It is submitted that after earlier charge sheet, enquiry was conducted. The enquiry officer did not find charges as proved. In view of the above, a copy of the enquiry report was not served on the petitioner, as it is required to be served on a final decision by the Disciplinary Authority after receipt of the enquiry report. The Disciplinary Authority found reasons to sent the case for a fresh enquiry and accordingly, the same charge sheet was served again followed by appointment of Enquiry Officer, the petitioner has already participated in the enquiry, thus interference in the charge sheet as well as proceedings may not be made. 6. I have considered rival submissions made by learned counsel and perused the record. 7. It is a case where petitioner was served with the charge sheet dated 21st November, 2013 and in pursuance to the charge sheet, enquiry was conducted. The Enquiry Officer recorded finding in favour of the petitioner. A copy of it was sent to the Disciplinary Authority but no order has been passed after providing copy of it to the petitioner. It is a case where petitioner was served with the charge sheet dated 21st November, 2013 and in pursuance to the charge sheet, enquiry was conducted. The Enquiry Officer recorded finding in favour of the petitioner. A copy of it was sent to the Disciplinary Authority but no order has been passed after providing copy of it to the petitioner. The Annexure R/2 has been produced by the respondent, which is not an order but a nothing made by the Disciplinary Authority and not even conveyed to the petitioner. If, at all, the rule or procedure permits de-novo/fresh enquiry for the reasons given, an order is required to be passed and, that too, it should be after following the procedure. 8. It is surprising that for holding de-novo/fresh enquiry, same charge sheet has been given again, though it is of the same date and containing same allegations. It seems to be nothing but supply of the charge sheet afresh to the petitioner, though was not even required, if at all, de-novo/fresh enquiry is to be conducted. In view of the above, procedure adopted by the respondents after holding enquiry and submission of the enquiry report is illegal. After conclusion of the enquiry, a copy of the report is to be given to the employee. If the rule permits then the Disciplinary Authority can serve the notice on the employee recording the grounds for disagreement from the report given by the Enquiry Officer or alternatively, if rule permits for de-novo/fresh enquiry, then to pass an order for it after recording the reasons. The procedure aforesaid has not been followed in the instant case, thus any action subsequent to the conclusion of enquiry and submission of report is illegal. The petitioner was not required to be served with the same charge sheet for de-novo/fresh enquiry, rather it should have been proceeded based on the charge sheet, already served earlier but when the order for it has been passed. 9. In view of the above, de-novo/fresh enquiry is quashed, however, it is with liberty to the respondents to proceed afresh from the stage of submission of enquiry report, which should be supplied to the petitioner and thereupon, proceed further in accordance to the rules. The Disciplinary Authority can pass an appropriate order, as it think fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. The Disciplinary Authority can pass an appropriate order, as it think fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. The interference in the proceedings would not preclude the Disciplinary Authority to pass a fresh order for de-novo/fresh enquiry, if rule permits for it and a fresh charge sheet needs not to be served as de-novo/fresh enquiry would be in reference to the charge sheet already served to the petitioner. In case of disagreement from the finding of enquiry report, specific grounds would be recorded for disagreement, that too, if rule permits for such a procedure. The Disciplinary Authority may accordingly proceed in the matter and pass an appropriate order in the facts and circumstances of the case. 10. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands allowed. This disposes of the stay application as well.