The disciplinary authority must provide cogent reasons for ordering a de novo inquiry; failure in this regard vitiates subsequent penalties, while waiver through participation in inquiry bars later challenges.

JUDGMENT :

DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, C.J.

CHALLENGE

1. This letter patent appeal instituted under Clause X of the Letter Patent seeks to challenge the judgment and order dated 09.12.2024 passed by learned Single Judge whereby W.P.(C) No.6696/2003 filed by the respondent, was allowed, and the charge-sheet along with the Inquiry Report dated 14.12.1995, punishment order of dismissal from service dated 17.08.1996, the order of the Appellate Authority dated 26.07.2002 dismissing the appeal against the order of punishment, and the order dated 08.04.2003 passed by Reviewing Authority dismissing the review, has been quashed.

2. Learned Single Judge has further held that the respondent shall be entitled to notional reinstatement from the date of the order of penalty till 30.04.2011 when he retired on attaining the age of superannuation. Further directions were also issued by learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment and order that pay and allowances of the respondent shall be calculated for the period of notional reinstatement for the purposes of retiral benefits on this basis, and he shall accordingly be paid his pension from 30.04.2011 along with arrears.

FACTS

3. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the respondent. We have also perused the records available before us on this letters patent appeal.

4. The facts as pleaded in this matter in brief are as follows:-

i.) Before the merger of the Bank of India with the Punjab National Bank, the respondent was working as Manager (MMG/S-II) at New Bank of India till 07.01.1990. While working in the said position, a charge-sheet was issued against him on 20.09.1990, whereby he was charged with misconduct. The charges as mentioned in the Articles of Charge were that the respondent acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the Bank; he failed to discharge his duties with utmost integrity, honesty and diligence; he failed to ensure and protect the interest of the Bank; he acted in manner unbecoming of an Officer of the Bank; he acted otherwise than in his best judgment while discharging his duties, he misused /abused his position and status in the Bank, and therefore, such acts committed by the respondent constituted misconduct under Regulation 24 of the New Bank of India Officer Employees (Conduct) Regulation, 1982, which are punishable.

ii.) The statement of allegations, which accompanied the Articles of Charge, states that (a) the respondent directly or indirectly helped the firm M/s Vishal Super Insulators, of which one Mr.Vijay Kumar and Mrs.Menka Mehta were partners, to secure financial assistance from the Bank without disclosing to the recommending authority or the sanctioning authority that Mrs.Menka Mehta was his sister.

iii.) The allegations against the respondent further were that he made certain manipulations in the documents by changing the dates of note from 03.03.1988 to 19.02.1988 and got the financial assistance sanctioned by misusing his position in respect of the proposal of M/s UKG Engineering Private Limited, which was a sister company of M/s Vishal Super Insulators. It was also stated in the allegation that limit of financial assistance was enhanced within a period of one and a half month from Rs.4,00,000/- to Rs.7,50,000/- on 08.04.1988, which was without jurisdiction, without examining the operation of the account which showed divergence of fund to the sister company and further that concerned branch of the Bank frequently allowed excess drawing in th