Back
1995 Supreme(AP) 630
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : Y.BHASKAR RAO, Y.V.NARAYANA
Nagarjuna Grameena Bank rep.by the board of Directors, Khammam - Appellant
Versus
M.F.Bruce - Respondent
Decided On : 09-27-95
A delinquent officer's statement will only amount to an admission of guilt if it is made voluntarily and in unequivocal terms. The entire statement must be considered in toto to come to the conclusion that such statement amounts to an admission of guilt.
Headnote:
ADMISSION OF GUILT - DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRY - INTERPRETATION OF STATEMENTS MADE BY DELINQUENT OFFICER - REQUIREMENT OF CLEAR AND UNEQUIVOCAL ADMISSION - FAIR ENQUIRY - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - DISMISSAL FROM SERVICE - VALIDITY.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, a branch manager in a bank, was charged with various irregularities and malfeasance. He submitted an explanation denying the charges but stating that he may be pardoned if the charges were found to be proved. An enquiry officer was appointed, but he only cross-examined the respondent and did not conduct any further enquiry. Based on the enquiry officer's report, the respondent was dismissed from service.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the respondent's statements in his explanation did not amount to a clear and unequivocal admission of guilt. The enquiry officer did not conduct a proper enquiry and the respondent was not given a reasonable opportunity to prove his case. The disciplinary authority did not properly exercise its mind in considering the report of the enquiry officer and the dismissal order was not based on any reasons or evidence. The dismissal order was also vitiated by the fact that the appellate authority was the same as the original authority which passed the dismissal order.
Issues: 1. Whether the respondent's statements in his explanation amounted to an admission of guilt. 2. Whether the enquiry officer conducted a proper enquiry. 3. Whether the respondent was given a reasonable opportunity to prove his case. 4. Whether the disciplinary authority properly exercised its mind in considering the report of the enquiry officer. 5. Whether the dismissal order was based on any reasons or evidence. 6. Whether the dismissal order was vitiated by the fact that the appellate authority was the same as the original authority which passed the dismissal order.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the respondent's statements in his explanation did not amount to a clear and unequivocal admission of guilt because he disputed the veracity of the charges and stated the circumstances in which a particular thing or act happened. He also stated that he may be pardoned if the charges were found to be proved. 2. The court held that the enquiry officer did not conduct a proper enquiry because he only cross-examined the respondent and did not examine any other witnesses or mark any documents. 3. The court held that the respondent was not given a reasonable opportunity to prove his case because he was not given the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses who testified against him or to lead his own evidence. 4. The court held that the disciplinary authority did not properly exercise its mind in considering the report of the enquiry officer because it did not give any reasons for its decision to dismiss the respondent and the dismissal order was not based on any evidence. 5. The court held that the dismissal order was vitiated by the fact that the appellate authority was the same as the original authority which passed the dismissal order because this violated the principles of natural justice and fair play.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ appeal and upheld the order of the single judge quashing the dismissal order.
( 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: 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 him and a charge-memo was issued to him on 29-1-1980. The responden therein submitted his 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 his subordinates. An enquiry officer was appointed and the enquiry was posted to 19-4-1980. In the enquiry,only the respondentwas 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 his 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 couldnot 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. "
( 3 ) ACCORDINGLY, the enquiry officer submitted his 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. 2451 of 1980 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.
( 4 ) THE learned single Judge allowed the writ petition holding that the statements made by the respondentherein in his 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, me principles of natural justice are violated. Accordingly, the learned single Judge quashed the dismissal order and in view of the fact that mere was lapse of long period of time he held that it is not desirable to direct a fresh enquiry. Against this order the present writ appeal has been filed.
( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the appellants contended that the respondent, admitted the guilt and, therefore, mere is no need to conduct further enquiry. The dismissal order passed by the appellants is correct and the learned 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.
( 6 ) 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 his explanation. It is stated that in his 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, his explanation cannot be taken as an unequivocal acceptance of the guilt. There is no doubt that the dismissal of the respondent was based on the ground m
