Point of law: When the disciplinary authority himself inquires into the charges there is no occasion for submission of an inquiry report. The entire evidence oral and documentary - along with submissions, if any, are available to him to proceed to arrive at final conclusions in the inquiry. Where, however, the disciplinary authority delegates the inquiry to another, such Inquiry Officer may furnish a report on the basis of the evidence recorded by him and in some cases the Inquiry Officer even recommends the punishment to be imposed.

JUDGMENT :

BIREN VAISHNAV, J.

1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner - an erstwhile bank employee with a prayer and for a direction to quash and set aside the order of dismissal dated 05.06.2003 confirmed in appeal by order dated 13.10.2003 and the order of 22.07.2006 by which the petitioner’s review application for reconsideration was not entertained.

2. Facts in brief are as under:

2.1 The petitioner at the relevant time was working as a clerk cum cashier at the Manavadar Branch of the Union Bank of India. For an incident which took place on 08.11.2002, the petitioner was issued a show cause notice dated 15.02.2003 inter-alia stating that on 08.11.2002, a proprietor of M/s. N.P. Traders issued a self cheque of Rs. 11 lakhs and presented it for payment at the Manavadar Branch. Since, the Branch did not have sufficient cash, the branch arranged for inward remittance of Rs. 10 lakhs from State Bank of Saurashtra. Instead of paying Rs. 11 lakhs, the petitioner paid the party - the petitioner Rs. 10 lakhs i.e. Rs. 1 lakh short. When the party on 10.11.2002 reported a shortage of Rs. 1 lakh to the branch manager, the petitioner was found to be in possession of Rs. 90 lakhs from his residence and that he unauthorizedly removed Rs. 10,000/- from the cash safe.

2.2 On 11.03.2003 the petitioner responded to the show cause notice. On 13.03.2003 a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner levelling the charge as aforesaid. On 16.04.2003 the petitioner replied to the charges admitting the guilt. During the course of the inquiry proceedings, the petitioner admitted his guilt and made a confession. On 30.04.2003 the Inquiry Officer gave his finding in the report which was forwarded to the petitioner by a letter of 14.05.2003 and the petitioner was advised to remain present for a personal hearing. Accordingly, after hearing the petitioner, the petitioner was dismissed from service by the order dated 05.06.2003.

2.3 On an appeal being preferred before the Appellate Authority, during the course of written submissions filed on 30.09.2003, the petitioner once again on a personal hearing being given, was heard and the Appellate Authority by an order dated 10.10.2003, rejected the appeal of the petitioner and confirmed the order of dismissal. In a review filed, on 15.02.2016 the review was so dismissed. Hence, the petition.

3. Mr. B.S. Patel learned Senior Counsel appearing with Ms. Nidhika Jhaveri took the Court through the paper-book and made the following submissions:

3.1 Mr. B.S. Patel submitted that the petitioner was not an officer of the bank and therefore, the regulations relied upon by the bank would not be applicable. He would rely on the definition of Section 3(g) of the Officers Employees Regulations. Inviting the attention of the Court to the bipartite settlement annexed to the petition. Mr. Patel would submit that reading of bipartite settlement would indicate that an employee can be punished for being guilty of any misconduct and the inquiry can be dispensed with or an inquiry need not be held if the misconduct is such that the bank does not intend to award punishment of discharge when the employee makes the voluntary admission of his guilt. He would therefore submit that reading the bipartite settlement, particularly clause 19.12 thereof only when the punishment of dismissal is not warranted, the voluntary admission can be taken into consideration and the inquiry can be dispensed with. In the present case, according to Mr. Patel, evidently and admittedly, solely based on a confession made by the petitioner, the Inquiry Officer/Disciplinary Authority has imposed a punishment of dismissal without holding any formal inquiry into the charge against the petitioner.

3.2 Mr. Patel would also submit that reading of the Inquiry Officer’s report, the finding recorded and the penalty order, it is evident that one Shri R.N. Joshi was the Disciplinary Authority and the Inquiry Officer. He would