The principle of severability cannot be applied to inextricably mixed-up charges of serious misconduct by a bank officer, and the non-supply of an inquiry report does not prejudice the officer if he had an opportunity to challenge the findings in an appeal or writ petition.

Judgment

S. P. KURDUKAR, J.

( 1 ) THE first appellant is a nationalized bank incorporated under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970, (for short the Act ). The service conditions of its officers/employees are governed by Regulations framed under the powers delegated under Section 19 of the Act. The disciplinary proceedings for various acts of breach by its officers/employees are regulated by Union Bank of India Officers Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976, (for short the Regulations ).

( 2 ) THE respondent was initially recruited in the services of the Bank as a Clerk. Incidentally, it may be stated that in 1974, an inquiry was conducted in regard to certain acts of misconduct and irregularities committed by him and upon such findings by the Inquiry Officer, he was dismissed from service, but, however, on his representations, he was reinstated on humanitarian grounds in 1982 pursuant to the order passed by the Managing Director.

( 3 ) ON reinstatement, the respondent came within the zone of consideration for promotion. He accordingly participated in the promotion process held in 1982-83 and was empanelled in 1984 for promotion. He came to be promoted as an officer in the year 1988 on his turn in the panel. Sometime in 1989, certain irregularities committed by him prior to the promotion and thereafter came to the notice of the bank authorities and thereafter he came to be suspended under the Regulations and was paid only the subsistence allowance as admissible under the Regulations. The respondent filed Writ Petition No. 3789 of 1990 and it appears that the High Court by its order dated 9/02/1990 stayed the operation of the orders passed by the bank authorities. We are told that the Writ Petition is still pending.

( 4 ) THE Disciplinary Authority on being prima facie satisfied that the alleged misconduct of the respondent needs to be inquired into under the Regulations, instituted departmental inquiry. The four charge sheets dated 17/02/1989, 25/08/1989, 16/12/1989 and 13/02/1990 came to be served on the respondent for his alleged acts of bribery, embezzlement, misappropriation and other acts of unbecoming of a bank officer. After service of the charge sheets and the statement of allegations in respect thereof, an Inquiry Officer came to be appointed. During the inquiry proceedings, the respondent attended on few dates and thereafter the inquiry proceeded ex parte. The Inquiry Authority after analysing the evidence led before it found the respondent guilty of charges which were levelled against him and accordingly submitted its report dated 8/12/1990 to the Disciplinary Authority.

( 5 ) THE Disciplinary Authority after considering the report by its order dated 7/01/1991 awarded the punishment of dismissal of the respondent from the service. This order was unsuccessfully challenged in the Writ Petition and the same was dismissed on 21/03/1991 on the ground that the respondent had not availed the alternate remedy of appeal as provided under Regulation 17. The respondent thereafter preferred an appeal under Regulation 17 to the Appellate Authority which after considering it on merits dismissed the same vide its order dated 30/05/1991. The respondent aggrieved by the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority filed a Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23286 of 1991 in the High Court.

( 6 ) THE High Court after hearing the parties and on perusal of their pleadings vide its judgment and order dated 30/04/1996 allowed the writ petition and set aside the orders dated 7/01/1991 and 30/05/1991 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority respectively and directed the Disciplinary Authority to serve a copy of the inquiry report on the respondent, who if so chooses, may file a representation against the inquiry report. The Disciplinary Authority thereafter will consider the report and the representation and will pass the order in accordance with