Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 1602 (ALL)

Ram Gopal Rastogi v. State of U. P.

2019-07-04

RAJNISH KUMAR

body2019
ORDER : Rajnish Kumar, J. 1. Heard, Shri. Piyush Asthana, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri. Vinod Kumar Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the opposite parties. 2. The petitioner has approached this court by means of the present writ petition challenging the punishment order dated 24.05.2010 and the suspension order dated 24.06.2008 with a further prayer to pay all the arrears of wages, salary including all the allowances, benefits from the date of suspension i.e. 24.06.2008 along with appropriate interest. 3. Brief facts of the case for adjudication of the present writ petition are that the petitioner was working as Branch Manager (Class-II post), at the relevant point of time, in the respondent-Co-operative Bank. The disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner were initiated vide order dated 15.11.2007 passed by the Managing Director of the bank in respect of loan case of Shri. Mahaveer son of Sri. Jamuna Prasad disbursed during the period of working of the petitioner at Hathwanth Branch, District Firozabad along with other charges. Shri. Ravi Kant, Incharge Agra Division/Assistant General Manager of the bank was appointed as an Inquiry Officer. A charge sheet dated 04.02.2008 containing 8 charges was issued and served on the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge sheet dated 04.02.2008 vide his letter dated 09.04.2008. 4. The petitioner was suspended on the allegation of dereliction in discharge of duties by means of order dated 24.06.2008 passed by the Managing Director of the bank as he came late in the office on 16.06.2008 while he was working at Alapur Branch of the Bank in district Badaun and another disciplinary proceeding was instituted. A charge sheet dated 14.07.2008 in respect of his unauthorized absence on 16.06.2008 up to 1 p.m. and dereliction in discharge of duties and not taking interest in important works was issued and served on the petitioner. 5. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge sheet dated 14.07.2008, a copy of which has been annexed as annexure No. 7 to the writ petition. Thereafter the inquiry reports dated 08.04.2008 and 20.10.2008 were submitted. In pursuance thereof a show cause notice dated 26.12.2008 was issued and served to the petitioner proposing the punishment of dismissal from the Bank service and recovery of Rs. 4,74,603/- up to the extent of 40% of it from the dues of the petitioner. Thereafter the inquiry reports dated 08.04.2008 and 20.10.2008 were submitted. In pursuance thereof a show cause notice dated 26.12.2008 was issued and served to the petitioner proposing the punishment of dismissal from the Bank service and recovery of Rs. 4,74,603/- up to the extent of 40% of it from the dues of the petitioner. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 14.01.2009 to the show-cause notice, in which he opposed and protested the proposed punishment on several grounds. Since the punishment of dismissal can be given only after obtaining concurrence from the U.P. Co-operative Institutional Service Board as per Regulation 87 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975 (hereinafter referred as Regulations, 1975), therefore, the petitioner made a request to the Sachiv of the Service Board (opposite party No. 5) to afford the opportunity of personal hearing provided under Business Rule No. 30 of the Service Board before giving concurrence/consent to the proposed punishment of dismissal of the petitioner. The petitioner was called for personal hearing on 30.05.2009. The petitioner appeared and submitted his written statement before the Member (Administration) in which he put up all his defence points against the proposed punishment of dismissal. The petitioner again sent a letter dated 14.01.2010 to Service Board submitting the special facts to be considered in respect to the discrimination made by the employer bank in awarding lessor punishment to Shri. Sudhir Kumar, Senior Manager and Shri. Dev Narayan Singh, Branch Manager in similar circumstances. 6. The Board accorded its concurrence to the proposed punishment. In pursuance thereof the punishment order dated 24.05.2010 was passed by means of which the petitioner has been dismissed from service and recovery of 40% of Rs. 4,74,603/- from the dues of the petitioner in case the same is not recovered and recovery of remaining amount under Section 60 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this court by means of the present writ petition. 7. 4,74,603/- from the dues of the petitioner in case the same is not recovered and recovery of remaining amount under Section 60 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Act, 1965. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this court by means of the present writ petition. 7. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the first disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner was instituted vide order dated 15.11.2007 passed by the Managing Director of the Bank only in respect of a loan case of Shri. Mahaveer son of Shri. Jamuna Prasad disbursed during the period of working of the petitioner at Hathwantn Branch, District Firozabad, but charge sheet dated 04.02.2008 was issued and served to the petitioner by the Inquiry Officer suo motu levelling 8 charges, which was beyond the scope of reference of his appointment. Therefore, the charges levelled against the petitioner by the Inquiry Officer himself were not sustainable. Further submission was that since no preliminary inquiry was conducted in regard to those additional charges so Shri. Ravi Kant was merely a preliminary Inquiry Officer, as such, he was not competent to give charge sheet and hold enquiry in regard to those charges because there is legal bar in this regard in Regulation 85(IV) of Service Regulations. 8. He further submitted that the Inquiry Officer has not followed the principles of natural justice since the very initiation of the inquiry. He had not enclosed and served the proposed evidence in support of the allegations made against the petitioner along with the charge sheet, which was mandatory in view of Rule 81(1)(a). Therefore, there was complete denial of principles of natural justice in respect of first inquiry conducted by Shri. Ravi Kant, Incharge Assistant General Manager, Agra Division in pursuance of the charge sheet dated 04.02.2008. 9. So far as the second inquiry, in pursuance of the charge sheet dated 14.07.2008, conducted by Shri. Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, Assistant General Manager, Bareilly Division is concerned, only a date was fixed for hearing, but no date, time and place was fixed for holding the inquiry and no opportunity was afforded for cross-examination. Therefore it was also in violation of principles of natural justice. 10. Therefore it was also in violation of principles of natural justice. 10. He further submitted that the second inquiry was wrongly initiated on the report of the Manager (Legal) against the provisions of Regulation 85(3) of Regulations 1975, which provides that the disciplinary proceedings shall be taken by the society against the employee on a report made to this effect by the inspecting authority or an officer of the society under whose control the employee is working. Therefore, the second inquiry was void ab-initio. He submitted that in view of Rule 79(1) of the Rules 1976 only one penalty can be imposed, therefore, the proposal of two punishments is against the Rules, but without considering the detailed reply to the show-cause notice submitted by the petitioner and the written submissions made to the Service Board i.e. opposite party No. 5, the aforesaid two punishments have been awarded to the petitioner by means of the impugned order dated 24.05.2008. 11. On the basis of above, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been punished in an arbitrary and illegal manner in flagrant violation of principles of natural justice, Regulations and the Rules, therefore, the impugned orders are not sustainable and are liable to be quashed and the writ petition is liable to be allowed. 12. Per contra learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioner had committed several irregularities and had also not taken keen interest in applying the Debt Recovery/Debt Waiver Scheme issued by the Central Government, therefore, the petitioner was suspended by the order of the Pradhan Karyalaya dated 24.06.2008. Thereafter the inquiries were conducted in accordance with law and after affording proper opportunity to the petitioner and getting his reply and properly vetting the evidences as well as the reply of the petitioner, the Enquiry Officers submitted the inquiry reports. 13. On due consideration of the inquiry reports it was found that due to illegal disbursement of loan by the petitioner amounting to Rs. 4,74,603/- the bank has become unsecured. It was also found that without repayment of the first loan some persons have been given second and third loan ignoring the Rules and Regulations. The loans were also disbursed by the petitioner on incomplete documents with the conspiracy of the dealers and the cheques have also been passed. 4,74,603/- the bank has become unsecured. It was also found that without repayment of the first loan some persons have been given second and third loan ignoring the Rules and Regulations. The loans were also disbursed by the petitioner on incomplete documents with the conspiracy of the dealers and the cheques have also been passed. The petitioner has also oftenly absented himself from the bank without permission of the authorities and had misused his power and post. Therefore on the basis of proved number of irregularities committed by the petitioner, a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner. After calling his explanation and also affording opportunity of personal hearing on 28.01.2009, in which he failed to adduce any evidence which could prove his innocence, the punishment order dated 24.05.2010 has rightly been passed in accordance with law. There is no illegality or infirmity in it. 14. On the basis of above submissions, he submitted that the writ petition has been filed on misconceived and baseless grounds, which is liable to be dismissed with costs. 15. I have considered the submissions of the parties and perused the record. 16. The first submission of learned counsel for the petitioner was that since the first inquiry was initiated against the petitioner only with respect to loan case of Shri. Mahaveer son of Shri. Jamuna Prasad disbursed during the period of working of the petitioner, therefore, the other charges framed by the inquiry officer were against Regulation 85(IV) of the Service Regulations seems to be misconceived and not sustainable because perusal of the order dated 15.11.2007 indicates that the inquiry was initiated in respect to the aforesaid allegation alongwith other allegations. As such, a reference in regard to other allegations was made, though specific allegations were not mentioned, therefore, I am of the view that there was no error in issuing the charge sheet in regard to the charges levelled against the petitioner. Even otherwise once the inquiry was initiated, if other illegalities have come to light, the charges can be framed while issuing the charge sheet unless there is specific bar. 17. Even otherwise once the inquiry was initiated, if other illegalities have come to light, the charges can be framed while issuing the charge sheet unless there is specific bar. 17. So far as the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner in regard to initiation of second inquiry on the basis of the report of the Manager (Legal) is concerned, it appears that the said report was submitted by the Manager (Legal) after inspecting the Branch as per direction of the Assistant General Manager of the U.P. Co-operative Village Development Bank, District Bareilly/Badaun and the Pradhan Karyalaya, Lucknow. The inquiry was held as per direction of the Head Office, therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard is not tenable and the action taken against the petitioner on the inspection made by the Manager (Legal) on the direction of the Head Office cannot be said to be against the Regulations. 18. The next submission of learned counsel for the petitioner was regarding non-affording opportunity of hearing during the inquiry proceedings. A perusal of the inquiry reports dated 08.04.2008 and 20.10.2008 indicates that the inquiry reports were submitted after receipt of the reply. In the inquiry report dated 20.10.2008 there is a mention of fixing of date for personal hearing. The counter-affidavit filed by the respondents before this court also indicates that the inquiry report was submitted after getting reply of the petitioner and vetting the evidence as well as reply of the petitioner. Relevant paragraph 5 of the counter-affidavit is reproduced as under:- "5. That the Enquiry Officer proceeded in the matter and conducted the enquiry in accordance to law and given proper opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. After getting the reply of the petitioner in the issue, the Enquiry Officer properly vetting the evidences as well as reply of the petitioner, he submitted his enquiry report." 19. In view of above, it is apparent that the inquiry has not been conducted in accordance with law and the principles of natural justice. After receipt of reply to the charge sheet enquiry reports were submitted without fixing date, time and place for holding enquiry and affording opportunity to the petitioner. Therefore, this court is of the view that the Enquiry Officers have not acted fairly and in accordance with law. 20. After receipt of reply to the charge sheet enquiry reports were submitted without fixing date, time and place for holding enquiry and affording opportunity to the petitioner. Therefore, this court is of the view that the Enquiry Officers have not acted fairly and in accordance with law. 20. The Enquiry Officer is a quasi-judicial authority and he is required to act fairly and impartially because an Enquiry Officer in that capacity is not an employee of the department. This view is supported by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of P.N. Srivastava v. State of U.P. and others, 1999 (17) LCD 24 : (1999 All LJ 448). The relevant paragraph 10 is reproduced as under: 10. In the matter of disciplinary enquiries against delinquent employees, the authorities are required to act fairly, as the enquiries are of quasi-judicial nature and principles of natural justice have to be kept in mind. The delinquent official, is required to be afforded reasonable opportunity to cross-examine the witness and produce the witness in his defence. This is the minimum requirement of principle of natural justice. An Enquiry Officer is not entitled to collect the material against the delinquent official at his back. In Chandrama Tewari v. Union of India, AIR 1988 SC 117 , the Apex Court has ruled that the principles of natural justice require that the delinquent official is furnished with the copies of the documents relied upon against him and he should be given full opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and to produce his own defence. Besides, the Enquiry Officer cannot collect evidence behind the delinquent official and in case the Enquiry Officer relies upon such evidence, the enquiry stands vitiated and is ab initio void and liable to be set aside. Admittedly. In this case the petitioner gave names of 19 persons to be examined in the enquiry but none of them was summoned by the Enquiry Officer on 17.10.1997 when the petitioner was summoned to appear in the enquiry before him. In Shyam Swarup Gangwar v. U.P. Co-operative Institutional Service Board. Lucknow, 1997 ALJ 2158, it is held that if the delinquent official wants to adduce evidence, the Disciplinary Authority has no alternative but to allow him to adduce evidence. In Shyam Swarup Gangwar v. U.P. Co-operative Institutional Service Board. Lucknow, 1997 ALJ 2158, it is held that if the delinquent official wants to adduce evidence, the Disciplinary Authority has no alternative but to allow him to adduce evidence. In Mahesh Kumar Pandey v. Upper Pradhan Prabandhak, U.P.S.R.T.C., 1997 ALJ 1501, it has been observed: "Right of defence which is guaranteed to a Government servant under Article 311 of the Constitution and to other citizens under Articles 14 and 21 as also by the rules of natural justice is a substantive right which has to be full and complete. Mere opportunity to admit or deny a particular factual allegation amounting to a charge of misconduct alone is not the defence which is envisaged by the Constitution and rules of the natural justice." 21. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Saroj Kumar Sinha, (2010) 2 SCC 772 : ( AIR 2010 SC 3131 ) has held that the Enquiry Officer, being a quasi judicial authority, is in a position of an independent adjudicator and is not supposed to be representative of the department/Disciplinary Authority/Government and by virtue of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India the departmental enquiry had to be conducted in accordance with the rules of natural justice. The relevant paragraphs 27, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32 are reproduced as under: "27. A bare perusal of the aforesaid sub-rule shows that when the respondent had failed to submit the explanation to the charge sheet it was incumbent upon the Enquiry Officer to fix a date for his appearance in the inquiry. It is only in a case when the Government servant despite notice of the date fixed failed to appear that the Enquiry Officer can proceed with the inquiry ex part. Even in such circumstances it is incumbent on the Enquiry Officer to record the statement of witnesses mentioned in the charge sheet. Since the Government servant is absent, he would clearly lose the benefit of cross-examination of the witnesses. But nonetheless in order to establish the charges the Department is required to produce the necessary evidence before the Enquiry Officer. This is so as to avoid the charge that the Enquiry Officer has acted as a prosecutor as well as a Judge. 28. But nonetheless in order to establish the charges the Department is required to produce the necessary evidence before the Enquiry Officer. This is so as to avoid the charge that the Enquiry Officer has acted as a prosecutor as well as a Judge. 28. An Enquiry Officer acting in a quasi judicial authority is in the position of an independent adjudicator. He is not supposed to be a representative of the department/Disciplinary Authority/Government. His function is to examine the evidence presented by the department, even in the absence of the delinquent official to see as to whether the unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold that the charges are proved. In the present case the aforesaid procedure has not been observed. Since no oral evidence has been examined the documents have not been proved, and could not have been taken into consideration to conclude that the charges have been proved against the respondents. 29. Apart from the above by virtue of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India the departmental inquiry had to be conducted in accordance with rules of natural justice. It is a basic requirement of rules of natural justice that an employee be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in any proceeding which may culminate in a punishment being imposed on the employee. 30. When a departmental enquiry is conducted against the Government servant it cannot be treated as a casual exercise. The enquiry proceedings also cannot be conducted with a closed mind. The Enquiry Officer has to be wholly unbiased. The rules of natural justice are required to be observed to ensure not only that justice is done but is manifestly seen to be done. The object of rules of natural justice is to ensure that a Government servant is treated fairly in proceedings which may culminate in imposition of punishment including dismissal/removal from service. 31. In Shaughmessy v. United States (1953) 97 L Ed 956 (Jackson, J.), a Judge of the United States Supreme Court has said:(L Ed p. 969) "... Procedural fairness and regularity are of the indispensable essence of liberty. Severe substantive laws can be endured if they are fairly and impartially applied." 32. 31. In Shaughmessy v. United States (1953) 97 L Ed 956 (Jackson, J.), a Judge of the United States Supreme Court has said:(L Ed p. 969) "... Procedural fairness and regularity are of the indispensable essence of liberty. Severe substantive laws can be endured if they are fairly and impartially applied." 32. The affect of non-disclosure of relevant documents has been stated in Judicial Review of Administrative Action by De Smith, Woolf and Jowell, 5th Edn., p. 442 as follows: "If relevant evidential material is not disclosed at all to a party who is potentially prejudiced by it, there is prima facie unfairness, irrespective of whether the material in question arose before, during or after the hearing. This proposition can be illustrated by a large number of modern cases involving the use of undisclosed reports by administrative Tribunals and other adjudicating bodies. If the deciding body is or has the trappings of a judicial Tribunal and receives or appears to receive evidence ex parte which is not fully disclosed, or holds ex parte inspections during the course or after the conclusion of the hearing, the case for setting the decision aside is obviously very strong; the maxim that justice must be seen to be done can readily be invoked." In our opinion the aforesaid maxim is fully applicable in the facts and circumstances of this case." 22. It is apparent from perusal of inquiry report that no date, time and place was fixed for holding the inquiry and recording the statement of the witnesses and proving the charge and affording opportunity of cross examination to the petitioner. The only date fixed in the second enquiry was 05.09.2005 for personal hearing, which cannot be accepted as compliance of principles of natural justice because unless the charges are proved before the inquiry officer in presence of the delinquent, he cannot be asked to disprove the charge, therefore, fixing of date for personal hearing was nothing but merely an eye wash. 23. The relevant Regulation 85 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975 regarding disciplinary proceedings, on reproduction, reads as under:- "85. 23. The relevant Regulation 85 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975 regarding disciplinary proceedings, on reproduction, reads as under:- "85. Disciplinary Proceedings.- (i) The disciplinary proceedings against an employee shall be conducted by the Inquiring Officer (referred to in clause (iv) below) with due observance of the principles of natural justice for which it shall be necessary- (a) The employee shall be served with a charge sheet containing specific charges and mention of evidence in support of each charge and he shall be required to submit explanation in respect of the charges within reasonable time which shall not be less than fifteen days; (b) Such an employee shall also be given an opportunity to produce at his own cost or to cross-examine witnesses in his defence and shall also be given an opportunity of being heard in-person, if he so desires; (c) If no explanation in respect of charge sheet is received or the explanation submitted is unsatisfactory, the Competent Authority may award him appropriate punishment considered necessary. (ii)(a) Where an employee is dismissed or removed from service on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge; or (b) Where the employee has absconded and his whereabouts are not known to the society for more than three months; or (c) Where the employee refuses or fails without sufficient cause to appear before the Inquiring Officer when specifically called upon in writing to appear; or (d) Where it is otherwise (for reasons to be recorded) not possible to communicate with him, the Competent Authority may award appropriate punishment without taking or continuing disciplinary proceedings. (iii) Disciplinary proceedings shall be taken by the society against the employee on a report made to this effect by the inspecting authority or an officer of the society under whose control the employee is working. (iv) The Enquiring Officer shall be appointed by the Appointing Authority or by an officer of the society authorised for the purpose by the Appointing Authority: Provided that the officer at whose instance disciplinary action was started shall not be appointed as an Enquiring Officer nor shall the, Enquiring Officer be the Appellate Authority." 24. Regulation 85(i) provides that the disciplinary proceedings against an employee shall be conducted by the Enquiring Officer with due observance of the principles of natural justice. Regulation 85(i) provides that the disciplinary proceedings against an employee shall be conducted by the Enquiring Officer with due observance of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the inquiry was to be held in due observance of the principles of natural justice as has been held by this Court as well as by the Apex Court in several decisions. 25. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sher Bahadur Singh (dead) v. State of U.P.; 2009 (27) LCD 1412 has held in paragraph 4 as under: "4. Now, it is well settled that Departmental enquiry means service of charge sheet with opportunity to delinquent employee to submit a reply, thereafter it shall be necessary to record oral evidence to prove the allegations contained in charge sheet. In case the delinquent employee does not co-operate even then it shall be incumbent upon the Enquiry Officer to proceed ex parte and record oral evidence in support of allegations contained in the charge sheet. Thereafter, it shall be necessary to provide the opportunity to the delinquent employee to lead evidence in defence coupled with opportunity of personal hearing. After receipt of report from Enquiry Officer it shall be necessary for the punishing authority to serve a show cause notice alongwith copy of enquiry report and thereafter pass appropriate order in accordance with law vide M.V. Bijlani v. Union of India and others (2006) 5 SCC 88 : ( AIR 2006 SC 3475 ); Sher Bahadur v. Union of India and others (2002) 7 SCC 142 : ( AIR 2002 SC 3030 ); B.P. Chaurasia v. State of U.P. and others, 1983 (1) LCD 169; Onkar Singh v. State of U.P. and others, 1984(2) LCD 396; Hardwari Lal v. State of U.P. and others (2001) 1 UPLBEC 331 : (2000 AIR SCW 4556) and Radhey Kant Khare v. U.P. Co-operative Sugar Factories Federation Ltd., 2003 (21) LCD 610 : (2003 All LJ 1013)." 26. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Radhey Kant Khare v. U.P. Co-operative Sugar Factories Federation Ltd. has held in paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 as under:- "8. After a charge-sheet is given to the employee, an oral enquiry is a must, whether the employee requests for it or not. Hence, a notice should be issued to him indicating him the date, time and place of the enquiry. After a charge-sheet is given to the employee, an oral enquiry is a must, whether the employee requests for it or not. Hence, a notice should be issued to him indicating him the date, time and place of the enquiry. On that date the oral and documentary evidence against the employee should first be led in his presence vide, A.C.C. Ltd. v. Their Workmen (1963) 21 LLJ 396 (SC). Ordinarily, if the employee is examined first, it is illegal vide Anand Joshi v. M.S.F.C., 1991 LIC 1666 (Bom); S.D. Sharma v. Trade Fair Authority of India (1985) 2 LLJ 193 and Central Railway v. Raghubir Saran (1983) II LLJ 26. No doubt, in certain exceptional cases, the employee may be asked to lead evidence first, vide Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen, AIR 1968 SC 236 , but ordinarily the rule is that first the employer must adduce his evidence. The reason for this principle is that the charge sheeted employee should not only know the charges against him but should also know the evidence against him so that he can properly reply to the same. Where no witnesses were examined and no exhibit or record is made but straightway the employee was asked to produce his evidence and documents in support of his case it is illegal vide P.C. Thomas v. Mutholi Co-operative Society Ltd., 1978 LIC 1428(Ker) and Meengles Tea Estate v. Their Workmen, AIR 1963 SC 1719 . 9. It is also necessary that ordinarily the statement of all the witnesses of the employer should be recorded in presence of the employee unless there are compelling reasons to act otherwise vide Kesoram Cotton Mills v. Gangadhar, AIR 1964 SC 708 and Central Bank of India v. Prakash Chand, AIR 1969 SC 983 , etc. If the witnesses are examined in the absence of the employee and their recorded statements were also not supplied to him this procedure is illegal vide Tata Oils Mills Co. Ltd. v. Their Workmen (1963) 21 LLJ 78; India General Navigation and Rly. Co. Ltd. v. Its Employees (1961) 2 LLJ 372 (SC) : ( AIR 1960 SC 219 ); Bharat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. Jai Singh (1961) 2 LLJ 644 (SC); Sur Enamel and Stamping Works Ltd. v. Their Workmen, AIR 1963 SC 1914 and Vysya Bank v. N.M. Pat, 1994 LIC 1429 (Kant) etc. 10. Co. Ltd. v. Its Employees (1961) 2 LLJ 372 (SC) : ( AIR 1960 SC 219 ); Bharat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. v. Jai Singh (1961) 2 LLJ 644 (SC); Sur Enamel and Stamping Works Ltd. v. Their Workmen, AIR 1963 SC 1914 and Vysya Bank v. N.M. Pat, 1994 LIC 1429 (Kant) etc. 10. In Meenglas Tea Estate v. Their Workmen, AIR 1963 SC 1719 , the Supreme Court observed "It is an elementary principle that a person who is required to answer the charge must know not only the accusation but also the testimony by which the accusation is supported. He must be given a fair chance to hear the evidence in support of the charge and to put such relevant questions by way of cross-examination as he desires. Then he must be given a chance to rebut the evidence led against him. This is the barest requirement of an enquiry of this character and this requirement must be substantially fulfilled if the result of the enquiry can be accepted." 27. The Hon'ble Apex Court, considering the same Regulation 85 held in the case of Chamoli District Co-operative Bank Limited and another v. Raghunath Singh Rana and others; (2016) 12 SCC 204 : ( AIR 2016 SC 2510 ) that, when the Enquiry Officer was appointed, conducting of inquiry was mandatory and the disciplinary proceedings shall be conducted with due observance of the principles of natural justice and recorded its conclusions in paragraph 22 regarding the manner of conducting the inquiry. The relevant paragraphs 18, 19 and 22 are reproduced as under:- "18. It is also relevant to note that after submission of reply dated 04.02.1993, Disciplinary Authority issued a show-cause notice on 04.05.1993 asking the employee/respondent No. 1 to submit his reply. When the Enquiry Officer was appointed, conducting of the inquiry was mandatory and without conducting of an inquiry and without any inquiry report having been served on the employee/respondent No. 1, Disciplinary Authority could not have proceeded to impose any punishment. The compliance of principles of natural justice by the appellant-Bank is not a mere formality, more so when the statutory provisions specifically provides that disciplinary proceedings shall be conducted with due observations of the principles of natural justice. 19. The compliance of natural justice in domestic/disciplinary inquiry is necessary has long been established. The compliance of principles of natural justice by the appellant-Bank is not a mere formality, more so when the statutory provisions specifically provides that disciplinary proceedings shall be conducted with due observations of the principles of natural justice. 19. The compliance of natural justice in domestic/disciplinary inquiry is necessary has long been established. This Court has held that even there are no specific statutory rules requiring observance of natural justice, the compliance of natural justice is necessary. Certain ingredients have been held to be constituting integral part of holding of an inquiry. The Apex Court in Sur Enamel and Stamping Works Pvt. Ltd. v. Their Workmen, reported in (1964) 3 SCR 616 : ( AIR 1963 SC 1914 ) has laid down following:- "... An enquiry cannot be said to have been properly held unless, (i) the employee proceeded against has been informed clearly of the charges levelled against him, (ii) the witnesses are examined - ordinarily in the presence of the employee - in respect of the charges, (iii) the employee is given a fair opportunity to cross-examine witnesses, (iv) he is given a fair opportunity to examine witnesses including himself in his defence if he so wishes on any relevant matter, and (v) the Enquiry Officer records his findings with reasons for the same in his report." 22. From the proposition of law, as enunciated by Apex Court as noted above, and the facts of the present case, we arrive at the following conclusions:- 22.1. After service of charge sheet dated 16.01.1993 although the petitioners submitted his reply on 04.02.1993 but neither Enquiry Officer fixed any date of oral inquiry nor any inquiry was held by the Enquiry Officer. 22.2. Mandatory requirement of a disciplinary inquiry i.e. is holding of an inquiry when the charges are refuted and serving the inquiry report to the delinquent has been breached in the present case. 22.3. The employee/respondent No. 1 having not been given opportunity to produce his witnesses in his defence and having not been given an opportunity of being heard in person, the statutory provisions as enshrined in Regulation 85 (i)(b), have been violated. 22.4 The Disciplinary Authority issued show case notice dated 04.05.1993 to the employee/respondent No. 1 without holding of an inquiry and subsequent resolution by Disciplinary Authority taken in the year 2000 without their being any further steps is clearly unsustainable. 22.4 The Disciplinary Authority issued show case notice dated 04.05.1993 to the employee/respondent No. 1 without holding of an inquiry and subsequent resolution by Disciplinary Authority taken in the year 2000 without their being any further steps is clearly unsustainable. The High Court has rightly quashed the dismissal order by giving liberty to the bank to hold de-novo inquiry within a period of six months, if it so desires. 22.5. The Bank shall be at liberty to proceed with the disciplinary inquiry as per directions of the High Court in para 1 of the judgment. The High Court has already held that the petitioner shall be deemed to be under suspension and shall be paid suspension allowance in accordance with the rules." 28. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal & Ors. v. Kharak Singh; (2008) 8 SCC 236 : (2008 AIR SCW 7507) had occasion to examine various contours of natural justice which need to be specified in a departmental enquiry and noticing earlier judgments, where principles were laid down as to how enquiry is to be conducted, elaborated in paragraph 15, which is reproduced as under:- 15. From the above decisions, the following principles would emerge: (i) The enquiries must be conducted bona fide and care must be taken to see that the enquiries do not become empty formalities. (ii) If an officer is a witness to any of the incidents which is the subject matter of the enquiry or if the enquiry was initiated on a report of an officer, then in all fairness he should not be the Enquiry Officer. If the said position becomes known after the appointment of the Enquiry Officer, during the enquiry, steps should be taken to see that the task of holding an enquiry is assigned to some other officer. (iii) In an enquiry, the employer/department should take steps first to lead evidence against the workman/delinquent charged and give an opportunity to him to cross-examine the witnesses of the employer. Only thereafter, the workman/delinquent be asked whether he wants to lead any evidence and asked to give any explanation about the evidence led against him. (iii) In an enquiry, the employer/department should take steps first to lead evidence against the workman/delinquent charged and give an opportunity to him to cross-examine the witnesses of the employer. Only thereafter, the workman/delinquent be asked whether he wants to lead any evidence and asked to give any explanation about the evidence led against him. (iv) On receipt of the enquiry report, before proceeding further, it is incumbent on the part of the Disciplinary/Punishing Authority to supply a copy of the enquiry report and all connected materials relied on by the Enquiry Officer to enable him to offer his views, if any." 29. In view of above, this Court is of the considered opinion that the inquiry against the petitioner has been conducted in utter violation of principles of natural justice and the Rules & Regulations. It is also apparent that the contentions raised by the petitioner against the show cause notice have also not been considered by the Disciplinary Authority while passing the punishment order. Therefore, the impugned punishment order dated 24.05.2010 is not sustainable and is liable to be quashed. 30. In the result the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned punishment order dated 24.05.2010 is hereby quashed with all consequential benefits of service. Liberty is granted to the respondents to hold the enquiry afresh in accordance with law and regulations, if so advised. In such event the enquiry shall be held within three months of production of certified copy of this order and the consequential benefits shall depend upon the outcome of enquiry. 31. No order as to costs.