Judgement

M. K. MUKHERJEE, J.:- Leave granted. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. While working as the Manager of the Ridmalsar Branch of the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur (`Bank for short). Prabhu Dayal Grover (`Grover for short) was proceeded against departmentally for accepting bribe from one Maniram and removed from service on May 27, 1983. As the appeal preferred by him before the Executive Committee of the Bank proved abortive he instituted a civil suit in the Additional Court of the Munsif at Jaipur for a declaration that the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellant Authority were illegal and void and for consequential reliefs. The trial Court decreed the suit was the following findings:

"(i) the provisions of Regulation 68(2)(iii) of the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur Officers Service Regulations, 1979 (`Regulation for short), which governed the departmental enquiry had been violated inasmuch as no definite and distinct charges had been framed against the plaintiff (Grover) and he had been punished on the basis of a show cause notice only. Even statement of allegations had not been furnished to him;

(ii) a copy of the enquiry report was also not made available to Grover before the order of removal was passed;

(iii) the Disciplinary Authority had not applied its mind, before passing the order of punishment and it merely agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer; and

(iv) the Appellate Authority had also dismissed the Departmental Appeal without giving any reason".

3. The appeal preferred by the Bank against the judgment and decree of the trial Court was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Jaipur and the above findings were affirmed. The Appellate Court, however, granted liberty to the Bank to institute a fresh departmental enquiry with the stipulation that the liberty must be exercised within two months. The Bank then filed a second appeal in the High Court which was dismissed in limine. Grover also preferred a second appeal assailing the liberty granted to the Bank to hold a fresh enquiry which was also dismissed. Hence these two appeals, one at the instance of the Bank and the other by Grover. Of 322

"The Managing Director,

State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur,

Head Office,

Jaipur.

Dear Sir,

(THROUGH PROPER CHANNEL)

"DISCIPLINARY ACTION:

With reference to your letter No. VI/36/C/1050 of the 3rd instant, the allegations made in the charge sheet is false and is denied. Had there been any truth or substance in the allegations, the CBI, the highest investigating agency in the country by whom the matter had been investigated, would have registered a suitable case against me. There is, therefore, no justification in conducting departmental enquiry against me. I request you to kindly drop the disciplinary action against me to meet the ends of natural justice.

Yours faithfully,

Sd/-14-4-1980

(P.D. GROVER)

Officer, Grade II"

9. While on this point, it need also be stated that at no point of time during the departmental proceeding or before the Appellate Authority did Grover raise any objection regarding non furnishing of the statement of allegations much less that he was prejudiced thereby.

10. We may now advert our attention to the cases of Surath Chandra, (AIR 1971 SC 752) (supra) and Kulwant Singh (supra) on which Mr. Dutta strongly relied to contend that in case of disregard of any statutory rule relating to holding of an enquiry the entire proceeding was liable to be quashed. In Surath Chandras case the appellant, who was an employee of the State Government, had received a communication containing a number of charges but no statement of allegations on which those charges were based was sent to him. In replying thereto the appellant stated in categorical terms, that the charges and allegations were vague, indefinite and lacking in material particulars and pointed out that "unless the charges are made specific to the point and contain full details with date, time, place and person etc. it is impo