In disciplinary proceedings, the Disciplinary Authority is not bound by exoneration by the Inquiry Authority, and adherence to principles of natural justice is crucial; delay alone does not invalidate proceedings unless it causes prejudice.

JUDGMENT

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. The instant civil writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the Petitioner who was earlier posted as the Assistant General Manager, Regional Inspectorate at Chandigarh, challenging the order dated 23rd January 2003 directing the removal of Petitioner from services of Oriental Bank of Commerce (hereinafter referred to as "Respondent Bank") passed by the Disciplinary Authority and upheld by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 28th February 2003.

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. The brief facts for the disposal of the instant writ petition are that the Petitioner was appointed as a Branch Manager in the Respondent Bank in the year 1975. On the pretext of an anonymous complaint, the Petitioner was initially issued a show cause letter dated 15th March 1996 by the Respondent Bank on four charges and was asked for his explanation. The Petitioner sent his comments on the charges levelled against him, pointing out the baselessness thereof vide communication dated 25th March 1996 and 8th April 1996.

3. Upon receipt of explanation from the Petitioner, the Chief Vigilance Officer of the Respondent Bank addressed a letter dated 22nd June 1996, to the DGM, Reserve Bank of India, Mumbai saying that:

"We have examined the reply given by Sh. Malhan and are of the view that on the basis of the evidence furnished, we have no reason to disbelieve the statement of Sh. Malhan"

4. The Disciplinary Authority issued another memo dated 14th July 1998, to the Petitioner containing seven charges altogether, including the aforesaid four charges. The Petitioner submitted his reply to the said memo and on 23rd October 1999 a charge sheet was issued to the Petitioner on the said seven charges. A regular inquiry was set up to enquire into the aforesaid seven charges against the Petitioner and Commissioner of Departmental Inquiries was deputed as the Inquiry Authority.

5. The Inquiry Authority vide report dated 27th June 2002 exonerated the Petitioner of all the charges as nothing could be brought against the Petitioner by the bank during the inquiry. The Disciplinary Authority sent a disagreement note dated 13th August 2002 and thus invited representation from the Petitioner. In response to the aforesaid disagreement as communicated by the Disciplinary Authority, the Petitioner sent his representation dated 28th September 2002 to the Disciplinary Authority. Receiving no response to the communication from the Disciplinary Authority, Petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court of Delhi bearing number C.W.P. 1033 of 2003 on 5th February 2003 praying for directions to the Respondent Bank to communicate the decision on the representation of the Petitioner dated 28th September 2002. At the time of the hearing of that writ petition, on 7th February 2003 the counsel for the Respondent Bank informed a Coordinate Bench of this Court that the Disciplinary Authority has already disposed of the representation of the Petitioner and has removed him from the service vide its order dated 23rd January 2003. The relevant portion of the judgment of the Coordinate Bench of this Court has been reproduced herein below:

"Counsel appearing