The central legal point established in the judgment is that failure to provide a reasonable opportunity for the employee to defend himself in a disciplinary enquiry vitiates the proceedings and any resultant dismissal order.

P.P. Naolekar, C.J.

1. Heard Mr. B.R. Dey, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants and Mr. K. Agarwal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 1.

2. At the relevant time the respondent No. 1 was engaged in the Punjab & Sind Bank as Officer in the Junior Management Grade Scale-I. While working as Officer in the Junior Management Grade Scale-I the respondent No. 1 was served with a charge dated 16.3.1996 along with Article of Charges and the statements of allegations issued by the Assistant General Manager, Punjab and Sind Bank, Zonal Office. The respondent No. 1 was informed that Shri K.S. Bedi, Manager, Zonal Office has been appointed as Enquiry Authority and Shri Inderjit Singh, Manager, Silchar Branch has been appointed as Presenting Officer. The respondent No. 1 was directed to appear in the enquiry proceedings. After submission of the written statement Enquiry Officer fixed date for recording evidence of the employer and on 7.5.1997 one witness was examined and cross-examined. The order dated 7.5.1997 of the Enquiry Officer shows that the Presenting Officer was allowed to call for all the remaining witnesses on the next date of hearing. The next date of hearing was fixed on 17th June, 1997. On 17th June, 1997 the Enquiry Officer could not reach and, therefore, the matter was adjourned to 18th June, 1997. That was the date for recording the evidence of rest of the witnesses. On 18th June, 1997, 19th June, 1997 and 20th June, 1997 the recording of the evidence in the enquiry was adjourned to give opportunity to the respondent No. 1 to appear in the enquiry. The matter was listed on 21st June, 1997. On that date also the respondent did not appear and the evidence of three witnesses on behalf of the management was recorded ex parte. Thereafter on 2.12.1997 a letter was issued by the Enquiry Officer along with written brief, submitted by the management, whereby the respondent No. 1 was directed to submit his written brief within 15 days. The respondent No. 1 submitted his written brief but as per the management they did not receive written brief submitted by the respondent No. 1. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report before the disciplinary authority on 26.12.1997 and the respondent No. 1 was asked to furnish his comment within 15 days of receipt of the said letter. The respondent No. 1 submitted his comment and later on by order dated 19.8.1998 the respondent No. 1 was dismissed from service.

3. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal the respondent No. 1 preferred an appeal before the Departmental Authority. However, as the appeal could not be disposed of, the respondent No. 1 filed a writ petition in the High Court.

4. The learned Single Judge held that the respondent No. 1 was not given proper opportunity to defend himself in the Departmental Enquiry and thus prejudicially affected his right to defend him self. The learned Single Judge has also gone into the facts of the case and on appreciation of the evidence placed on records in the enquiry proceedings has reached to the conclusion that charges framed against the respondent No. 1 have not been proved and consequent thereof the order of dismissal has been set aside by the learned Single Judge. The employer Punjab & Sind Bank has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge before the Division Bench.

5. Without going into the question whether the charges have been proved on merit or not as held by the learned Single Judge, we find that there are procedural irregularity or illegality whereunder the respondent No. 1 was not given proper opportunity to defend himself and there is a breach of the relevant Rules as well as the principle of natural justice.

6. The facts stated hereinabove clearly indicate that the matter was listed before the Enquiry Officer on 21.6.1997 for recording the evidence of the witnesses of the employer as the respondent No. 1 did not appear in the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer