IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that an employee must be given a chance to respond to an enquiry officer's findings before a disciplinary authority makes a decision, as a matter of natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the charge-sheet dated 9th July, 2007, the enquiry proceeding, inter alia, including the order of compulsory retirement dated 12th/19th February, 2008.

2. The petitioner was posted as Staff Accounts Clerk in the Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the said Bank) at South Suburbs Branch, Kolkata. In course of his employment, he was served with an order of suspension dated 22nd December, 2006. The same was followed by a memorandum-cum-show-cause notice dated 19th January, 2007. The petitioner had responded to the said memorandum by his communication dated 5th April, 2007 denying all material allegations therein. Subsequently, by an office order dated 9th July, 2007, the respondent No. 4 as the disciplinary authority of the petitioner ordered a departmental enquiry against the petitioner for his gross misconduct and simultaneously forwarded the petitioner with the charge-sheet dated 9th July, 2007, list of documents, along with copy of documents and list of witnesses. Subsequently an enquiry officer was appointed to enquire into the charges leveled against the petitioner. After the enquiry was concluded, the petitioner was issued a show-cause notice dated 22nd January, 2008, wherefrom it transpires that the disciplinary authority while differing with the findings of the enquiry officer in so far as the same related to proof of charge No. 1 had held that the said charge stood conclusively proved and had accordingly proposed to impose a punishment of compulsory retirement in terms of Clause 6(c) of the bipartite settlement dated 10th April, 2002 subject to the petitioner furnishing representation, if any with regard to the findings of the enquiry officer. The petitioner had duly responded to the said show-cause by a representation wherein it was categorically noted that no opportunity was given to the petitioner to make representation on the revised findings of the disciplinary authority. Records reveal that by an order dated 12/19th February, 2008, the respondent No. 4 had inflicted a punishment of compulsory retirement of the petitioner. Although, the petitioner had preferred a statutory appeal such appeal was dismissed by an order dated 29th August, 2008. Challenging the charge-sheet as also the show-cause notice issued by the disciplinary authority, the final order of punishment and the order passed by the appellate authority, the present writ petition has been filed.

3. Mr. Neogi, learned advocate representing the petitioner by drawing the attention of this Court to the show-cause notice dated 22nd January, 2008 submits that the disciplinary authority while differing with the findings of the enquiry officer so far as the charge No. 1 is concerned, instead of returning a tentative finding and calling upon the petitioner to respond to the same had conclusively held the said charge to be proved and while proposing to impose penalty on the petitioner, had called upon the petitioner to show-cause. This, according to Mr. Neogi constitutes violation of principles of natural justice. The disciplinary authority being the respondent No. 4 without affording the petitioner adequate opportunity to defend had passed the final order and had imposed a penalty of compulsory retirement of the petitioner. Although, the petitioner preferred an appeal, the appellate authority had glossed over the aforesaid issue and had dismissed the same. In support of his aforesaid contention, he has placed reliance on the judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SBI and others v. Arvind K. Shukla, reported in AIR 2001 SC 2398 and the judgment delivered in the case of Lav Nigam v. Chairman and MD, ITC Ltd. and another, reported in (2006) 9 SCC page 440. On the same point he has also relied another judgment delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Limited v. Mahesh Dahiya, reported in (2017) 1 SCC