Back
1995 Supreme(AP) 1
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : V.BHASKARA RAO, Y.V.NARAYANA
Nagarjuna Grameena Bank, Board of Directors, Khammmam - Appellant
Versus
M.P.Bruce - Respondent
Decided On : 01-01-95
An employee's statement in response to a show-cause notice in disciplinary proceedings will amount to an admission of guilt only if it is made voluntarily and in unequivocal terms. The enquiry officer must conduct a proper enquiry by examining witnesses and giving the employee a reasonable opportunity to prove his case. The disciplinary authority must properly consider the enquiry report and provide reasons for imposing the punishment.
Headnote:
DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS - ADMISSION OF GUILT - INTERPRETATION OF EXPLANATION - SCOPE OF ENQUIRY - FAIRNESS AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY - ARTICLE 311(2) OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA - BANK EMPLOYEE - DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE - WRIT PETITION - QUASHING OF DISMISSAL ORDER - NO FRESH ENQUIRY DIRECTED DUE TO LAPSE OF TIME.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, a bank employee, was charged with 19 irregularities and malfeasance. He submitted an explanation denying the charges but stating that if found guilty, he may be pardoned. An enquiry officer was appointed, but only the respondent was cross-examined, and no other witnesses or documents were examined. The enquiry officer submitted a report stating that charges (I) and (XVI) were serious criminal offenses and required further enquiry. The Board dismissed the respondent based on the enquiry report. The respondent challenged the dismissal order in a writ petition, which was allowed by the single Judge. The Bank appealed against the single Judge's order.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the respondent's explanation did not amount to an unequivocal admission of guilt. The enquiry officer did not conduct a proper enquiry by examining witnesses and giving the respondent a reasonable opportunity to prove his case. The disciplinary authority did not properly consider the enquiry report and did not provide reasons for imposing the punishment of dismissal. The dismissal order was also vitiated as the appellate authority was the same Board that passed the dismissal order. The Court further held that, considering the lapse of time and the circumstances of the case, it was not desirable to direct a fresh enquiry.
Issues: 1. Whether the respondent's explanation amounted to an admission of guilt. 2. Whether the enquiry officer conducted a proper enquiry. 3. Whether the disciplinary authority properly considered the enquiry report and provided reasons for imposing the punishment of dismissal. 4. Whether the dismissal order was vitiated due to the appellate authority being the same Board that passed the dismissal order. 5. Whether a fresh enquiry should be directed.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the respondent's explanation did not amount to an unequivocal admission of guilt as it was made in response to a show-cause notice and contained both denials of the charges and a request for pardon in case the charges were found to be proved. 2. The Court held that the enquiry officer did not conduct a proper enquiry as he only cross-examined the respondent and did not examine any other witnesses or documents. 3. The Court held that the disciplinary authority did not properly consider the enquiry report and did not provide reasons for imposing the punishment of dismissal. 4. The Court held that the dismissal order was vitiated due to the appellate authority being the same Board that passed the dismissal order, as this violated the principles of natural justice and fair play. 5. The Court held that, considering the lapse of time and the circumstances of the case, it was not desirable to direct a fresh enquiry.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ appeal and upheld the single Judge's order quashing the dismissal order. The Court also declined to direct a fresh enquiry.
( 1 ) THE respondents in writ petition No. 16486 of 1986 preferred this writ appeal assailing the order of the learned single Judge, allowing the writ petition setting aside the dismissal order passed against the writ petitioner-respondent herein.
( 2 ) THE facts of the case, in brief, are as under:
( 3 ) THE writ petitioner-respondent herein was working as Branch Manager in Nagarjuna Grameena Bank, shaligouraram branch. It is alleged that he had committed certain irregularities which are culpable and are likely to cause pecuniary loss to the bank and that he had also committed acts of misfeasance and malfeasance. Basing on such allegations, 19 charges were framed against inm and a charge-memo was issued to inm on 29-1-1980 The respondent herein submitted ins explanation on 6-2-1980 denying the charges. However, he stated in the explanation that if the charges are found to have been proved, he may be pardoned as he did not have previous experience and he did not receive cooperation from ins subordinates. An enquiry officer was appointed and the enquiry was posted to 19-4-1980. In the enquiry, only the respondent was cross-examined by the enquiry officer. It is to be noted that no other witness was examined nor any document was marked in the said enquiry. After conducting the enquiry as above, the enquiry officer submitted ins report stating thus :"it will be observed from the foregoing that charges (I) and (XVI) are serious criminal offences, if proved. The others are either serious irregularities likely to affect the Bank s interests or procedural lapses. I could not submit a conclusive report especially with regard to charges (I) and (XVI) due to counter charges and counter statements which need further enquiry as already stated while dealing with the relative charges. "
( 4 ) ACCORDINGLY, the enquiry officer submitted ins report. Basing on that enquiry report, the Board dismissed the respondent herein from service. Challenging the order of dismissal the respondent herein filed writ petition No. 245 1 of 1 ( 80 which was disposed of on 30-7-1986 with liberty to the respondent herein to avail the statutory right of appeal provided under the Rules. Accordingly, the respondent herein preferred an appeal on 3-8-1986 and the same was disposed of on 27-9-1986 by the Board confirming the dismissal order. Assailing the said order, the respondent herein filed writ petition No. 16486 of 1986.
( 5 ) THE learned single Judge allowed the writ petition holding that the statement made by the respondent herein in ins explanation cannot be deemed to be admission of the guilt; except cross-examining the respondent herein, no enquiry was conducted by the enquiry officer and. therefore, the principles of natural justice are violated. Accordingly, the learned single Judge quashed the dismissal order and in view of the fact that there was lapse of long period of time he held that it is not desirableto direct a fresh enquiry. Against this order the present writ appeal; has been filed.
( 6 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants contended that the respondent admitted the guilt and, therefore, there is no need to conduct further enquiry. The dismissal order passed by the appellants is correct and the teamed single Judge erred in holding that there was no admission of guilt by the respondent-writ petitioner. Hence, it is submitted that the appeal has to be allowed.
( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contended that, admittedly, enquiry into the charges was not conducted and the respondent did not accept the guilt in ins explanation. It is stated that in ins explanation he disputed the charges. However, at the end of the explanation he pleaded that, in the alternative, he may be pardoned in case the charges are held to have been proved. Therefore, it is submitted, ins explanation cannot be taken as an unequivocal acceptance of the guilt. There is no doubt that the dismissal of the respondent was based on
