The main legal point established in the judgment is the duty of the Tribunal to frame a preliminary issue to determine if the domestic enquiry is vitiated and the importance of following judicial decisions.

JUDGMENT - DESHPANDE R.G., J.:---Rule returnable forthwith. Taken up for final hearing with the consent of the parties.

2. In the Departmental proceedings, initiated against the respondent No. 2-employee, charges were proved against him and the result thereof was issuance of an order of discharge of the respondent No. 2 from service. This order of discharge dated January 2, 1990.

3. An appeal, at the instance of the respondent No. 2, before the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the petitioner-bank, resulted into rejection thereof. This order passed by the Appellate Authority is dated 20-11-1990.

4. After about four year's gap, it was for the first time, the respondent No. 2 approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Nagpur, challenging the order of discharge from service. The proceedings being for conciliation and the conciliation having been failed, the matter was referred to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Jabalpur, for adjudication.

5. On having been noticed, the respondent-bank appeared before the learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal and opposed the case of the respondent No. 2 employee on all counts.

6. Before the Tribunal i.e. respondent No. 1, necessary oral evidence was led on the preliminary issue, i.e. as regards fairness of the departmental enquiry. Thereafter, as is clear from the record, as is placed before the Court, and which is not disputed by the respondent, on November 5, 2001, the learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal fixed the matter on January 11, 2002, for filing of Written Notes of Arguments on preliminary issues.

7. The matter thereafter appeared to have been transferred to Nagpur. However, instead of deciding the matter on a preliminary issue, the learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal, by an order dated September 12, 2002, observed that reference will be decided on merits, as also on the preliminary issue at one and the same time. The learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal also observed that the preliminary issue as regards fairness of the enquiry will not be decided separately or independently first.

8. A separate application was moved by the petitioner-bank for framing and hearing of the preliminary issue about the fairness of the Departmental Enquiry. However, the learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal, rejected the same by his order dated September 16, 2002. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid two orders, i.e. dated September 12, 2002 and September 16, 2002, the petitioner-bank has approached this Court, assailing the same scathingly pointing out that the learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal committed a grave error in not deciding the preliminary issue first, and further that not looked into the judgments cited before him in proper perspective.

9. Shri Almelkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that before the learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal, a decision of the Supreme Court, reported in 1975(II) L.L.J. 379 in the matter of (The Cooper Engineering Ltd. v. P.P. Mundhe)1, was specifically cited, pointing out that the Supreme Court specifically observed and held that when the domestic enquiry is challenged on the ground that the principles of natural justice are not followed and/or on the ground that it is not fair and proper, it is the duty of the Tribunal to frame a preliminary issue as to whether the domestic enquiry is vitiated. Shri Almelkar, further pointed out that a copy of the unreported decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 2228 of 2001 in the matter of (Pradeepkumar s/o. Laxmanprasad Vyas v. Ministry of Defence and another)2, was also placed before the learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal for his perusal, pointing out that the judicial decisions in the instant type of matter, it is always necessary to frame a preliminary issue and to decide the same first before entering into the merits of the case.

10. Shri Almelkar, learned Advocate, further pointed out that the second decision of the learned Single Judge of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document