IMPORTANT POINT
High Court was right in holding that no opportunity was given to the respondent by the disciplinary authority in regard to partly proved charges of enquiry officer which were not agreed to by disciplinary authority in the light of PNB case (1998) 7 SCC 84.

ORDER

This appeal is directed against the order dated 11th March, 1999 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court affirming the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The respondent herein was working as a Manager, Grade-I in the appellant Bank. On the allegations of certain misconduct and irregularities, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him by the appellants. Several charges were framed against him. The Enquiry Officer, after conducting enquiry, submitted a report holding that some of the charges were proved, some of the charges were partly proved and some of the charges were not proved. The disciplinary authority, while accepting the finding of the Enquiry Officer to the extent that some charges were proved and some of the charges were not proved, however, did not agree with the report, of the Enquiry Officer as regards the finding that the charges were partly proved. The disciplinary authority held that those were fully proved. In that view, on consideration of the material, the disciplinary authority recommended for dismissal of the respondent from service. Accepting the said recommendation, the competent authority passed an order of dismissal from service. The respondent unsuccessfully appealed against the order of dismissal to the authorities. Thereafter, he filed a writ petition before the High Court challenging the order of dismissal from service. The learned single Judge of the High Court, after hearing learned counsel for the parties, allowed the writ petition accepting the contention that no opportunity was given to the respondent by the disciplinary authority in regard to the charges with which the findings of the Enquiry Officer were not agreed to by the disciplinary authority in the light of the judgment of this Court in the case of Punjab National Bank and others vs. Kunj Behari Misra [(1998) 7 SCC 84]. The appellants took the matter in appeal before the Division Bench of the same High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court did not find any good or valid reason to differ from the conclusion arrived at by the learned single Judge and dismissed the appeal following the judgment of the Punjab National Bank aforesaid. Hence this appeal.

2. Mr. R. Sundaravaradan, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants strongly contended that providing further opportunity to the respondent by the disciplinary authority, even if it were to disagree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, was not necessary in terms of the regulations governing service conditions of the respondent; not providing an opportunity by the disciplinary authority did not prejudice the case of the respondent in any way. As such the High Court was not justified in setting aside the order of dismissal, particularly, when the respondent had the opportunity before the Enquiry Officer, to put forth his case. He also made efforts to distinguish with the case of Punjab National Bank (supra) stating that providing an opportunity would not apply to cases prior to the case of Union of India and others vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan [(1991) 1 SCC 588). He added that this Court in Punjab National Bank case did not deal with the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant-Bank in this regard. He relied on the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in State of Orissa vs. Bidyabhushan Mohapatra [(1963) Supp.1 SCR 648].

3. Per contra, Mr. L. Nageswara Rao, learned senior counsel representing the respondent made submissions supporting and justifying the impugned order. He said that the Constitution Bench decision in the case of Bidyabhushan Mohapatra, above mentioned, is distinguishable; that was a case where this Court set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court in regard to the penalty imposed even on the proved charges. In the present case, it is clear from the order of the learned single Judge as well as that of the Division Bench of the High Court that the High Court did not go into the merit