IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of fair procedure and the need to follow due process of law in disciplinary proceedings, including the examination of witnesses and the ascertainment of loss before forfeiting gratuity.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Dr. GJ Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners whereas the respondents-State Bank of India is represented by Shri B Buragohain, learned counsel.

2. The challenge in this writ petition is towards a disciplinary proceeding initiated vide a Charge Sheet dated 14.12.2012, the Inquiry Report dated 24.12.2015, penalty order of removal from service with forfeiture of gratuity dated 16.05.2016 and the rejection of the appeal vide order dated 02.12.2016. The challenge is structured both on the merits of the allegations as well as procedural irregularities and infirmities.

3. Before proceeding, this Court has been informed that during the pendency of this writ petition, the original petitioner no.1-delinquent has expired on 05.11.2023 and he was duly substituted by his legal heirs/present petitioners, who are his son and wife.

4. The present case has a chequered history, including history of litigation. The original petitioner no. 1 was serving as an Assistant Manager (Accounts) in the Koupati Branch of the respondent-Bank when a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him vide a Charge Sheet dated 14.12.2012. On completion of the inquiry, a second show cause notice was issued by the disciplinary authority whereby the findings of guilt of the petitioner were already concurred with. Though reply was filed, an order of penalty dated 24.09.2013 was imposed by which, the petitioner was dismissed from service and his gratuity was forfeited. The departmental appeal of the petitioner being rejected, he had approached this Court by filing WP(C)/3941/2014. The said proceeding had culminated in an order dated 04.08.2015 passed by this Court whereby the impugned penalty was set aside. However, a denovoinquiry was directed to be conducted and the petitioner would be continued to be under suspension.

5. Pursuant to the said order, new Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer were appointed and the inquiry was conducted which culminated in a report dated 24.12.2015. The second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 31.12.2015 in which, however, the disciplinary authority had made an observation that he was in agreement with the views of the Inquiry Officer and five out of six allegations were held to be proved and one allegation was held to be partially proved.

6. Dr. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the entire procedure adopted, including those in the inquiry are not in accordance with law and there has been gross violation of the norms and fair procedure. As regards the inquiry made, it is submitted that no witnesses were examined and though one person, Uttam Kalita was subsequently named as a witness, he was not examined and therefore, the question of cross-examining him also did not arise. It is submitted that all the allegations which are apparently serious in nature were held to be established without the same being proved in the inquiry by competent witnesses.

7. On the aspect of procedure adopted by the disciplinary authority in issuing the second show cause notice, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that such second show cause notice has become a mere formality inasmuch as the delinquent officer was deprived of a fair opportunity to make an endeavour to convince the disciplinary authority to take a view other than the views expressed by the Inquiry Officer holding the delinquent to be guilty of the charges.

8. By referring to the notice dated 31.12.2015, it is submitted that the disciplinary authority had agreed with the views and had also come to a finding that the allegations were found proved. In such circumstances, the scope of submitting a written representation was absolutely obliterated as the disciplinary authority had already made up his mind on the establishment of the guilt. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel has relied upon the following case laws:

i) Union of India Vs. Mohd.Ramzan Khan,(1991) 1 SCC 588; and

ii) Managing Director, ECIL Vs.