Non-supply of documents in a departmental enquiry does not automatically vitiate the proceedings if the delinquent was allowed to inspect the documents and was not prejudiced thereby. Acquittal in criminal proceedings does not automatically entitle the employee to be acquitted in a departmental enquiry, especially if the witnesses and standards of proof are different.

Sambuddha Chakrabarti, J.

The facts of the present case can be reduced to a short compass.

2. The petitioner was appointed as a Clerk-cum-Cashier in Punjab National Bank (PNB, for short) in the year 1978. In the year 1983 an FIR was lodged with the concerned police station by the bank authorities against the petitioner alleging cash shortage of Rs. 25,400/-. Another FIR was lodged against the petitioner by the same authorities in December, 1984 alleging misappropriation of Rs. 7,000/-. In both the cases charge-sheets were filed against the petitioner in the year 1985 and 1993 respectively.

3. Simultaneously the respondents nos. 2 and 3, i.e., the bank authorities, decided to initiate a departmental enquiry and consequently charge-sheet was issued. The first charge against the petitioner related to cash shortage of Rs. 25,400/- and the second charge was with regard to superfluous cash deposit entries amounting to Rs. 25,050/- made in the ledger on various dates without any corresponding entry in their relevant documents.

4. In reply the petitioner wanted the supply and inspection of certain documents which, the petitioner alleges, were not supplied to him.

5. In the enquiry proceeding that followed the petitioner, though absent initially, ultimately participated and cross-examined the prosecution witnesses. The Enquiry Officer had found him guilty of the first charge and partly in respect of the second charge.

6. A second show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner. He gave a reply.

7. Ultimately the respondent no. 3, i.e., the Regional Manager of the concerned bank, by a letter dated March 10, 1994 intimated the petitioner that he stood dismissed from the service of the bank with immediate effect and would not be entitled to any salary for the period of suspension except the subsistence allowance paid or payable in accordance with the provisions of the bipartite settlement.

8. The disciplinary proceeding and the said order is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition.

9. Two subsequent developments, however, have been mentioned by the petitioner in support of his case. On June 7, 2010 the learned Judge of the First Special Court, Hooghly, in both the criminal matters had acquitted the petitioner of the charges.

10. Strongly relying on this development Mr. Parthasarathi Bhattacharya, the learned advocate for the petitioner, has very strenuously argued that the learned Magistrate in both the cases had observed that the benefit of doubt must go in favour of the accused. A limb of Mr. Bhattacharya's arguments was that since in the second show-cause notice it was recorded that there was no progress in the criminal cases the bank decided to examine the matters in accordance with the provisions of the bipartite settlement. Therefore, after the acquittal of the petitioner the foundation of the respondents' case has very significantly been altered.

11. A very persistent case of the petitioner was that he was not supplied with the documents as requested by him and, therefore, the bank authorities without giving him copies of those documents had violated the principles of natural justice. According to Mr. Bhattacharya a person facing a departmental enquiry has every right to have access to the documents necessary for the preparation of his defence and by denying the same the authorities had clearly deprived him of his right to participate effectively at the enquiry.

12. Mr. Bhattacharya further argued that many of the documents exhibited at the enquiry by the bank were never referred to in the charge-sheet and no copy thereof was given to the petitioner. But the Enquiry Officer had nonetheless relied on those documents. His further grievance is that no copy of the evidence was supplied to him and thus the bank authorities despite his protestations did not comply with the principles of natural justice. In support of his contention that the charge-sheet should be accompanied by statements of imputation of misconduct Mr.