The Disciplinary Authority can order further enquiry only if serious defects exist in the initial enquiry; it cannot do so after a finding of exoneration.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioner has challenged order dated 19.08.2002 whereby an enquiry has been initiated against him. Challenge has also been thrown to enquiry report dated 19.03.2003 submitted by respondent No. 3 to respondent No. 2 and order dated 08.11.2004 issued by respondent No. 2 whereby a show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner in respect of proposed punishment of dismissal from service.

2. Briefly stated case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as cashier-cum-clerk with the respondent-Bank on 07.06.1986. It has been submitted that in the year 1999, the petitioner was posted at Tiger Cinema branch of Punjab National Bank. Vide order dated 03.02.1999, the petitioner was placed under suspension in connection with alleged fraud/embezzlement of money. A charge-sheet dated 08.06.1999 was served upon the petitioner by respondent No.2 wherein certain vague allegations against him were levelled. Reply to the said charge-sheet was submitted by the petitioner in terms of his letter dated 28.06.1999, whereafter, in terms of order dated 20.07.1999, Sh. S.K. Sharma, Manager, Regional Camp Office, Gandhi Nagar, Jammu, was appointed as an Enquiry Officer by the Disciplinary Authority. The petitioner challenged the enquiry proceedings by way of a writ petitioner bearing SWP No. 1764 of 1999. In terms of order dated 02.03.2000, the said writ petition came to be dismissed as withdrawn with a liberty to the respondent-Bank to serve a fresh charge-sheet upon the petitioner.

3. Respondent No. 4 served a fresh charge-sheet upon the petitioner vide memo dated 09.07.2001. As per the charges, the petitioner was alleged to have retained the cash deposited by certain customers unauthorisedly and deposited the same in the relevant accounts of the customers after a gap of 03 to 20 days. He was granted 15 days' time to file his reply to the charge-sheet. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge-sheet on 31.07.2001 and prior to that i.e. on 26.07.2001, respondent No.3 was appointed as an Enquiry Officer. The petitioner participated in the enquiry proceedings in which Sh. Pankaj Bakshi, Branch Manager, was appointed as the Presenting Officer. It is alleged that the Presenting Officer did not cooperate with the enquiry proceedings and sought several opportunities for filing list of witnesses/documents in support of the charges leveled against the petitioner. Ultimately, on 29.01.2002, the Enquiry Officer gave one last opportunity to the Presenting Officer to file his list of witnesses/ documents. According to the petitioner, the Presenting Officer failed to produce even a single witness to prove the charges against him. On 14.03.2002, photocopies of certain documents were produced by the Presenting Office and he sought permission to close his side of his case. When the Enquiry Officer asked the petitioner to lead his evidence in defence, he sought permission to inspect the original documents, photocopies whereof were produced by the Presenting Officer on 14.03.2002, but the Presenting Office expressed his inability to produce the original documents, as, according to him, the original record was lying with the previous Presenting officer Sh. Ashok Khazanchi who had been transferred by that time. Time was granted by the Enquiry Officer to the Presenting Officer for production of original documents so as to enable the petitioner to inspect the same, whereafter the Presenting Officer produced the original documents after procuring the same from the previous Presenting Officer. The petitioner is stated to have examined these original documents, but he did not deem necessary to produce any evidence in defence because nothing had been established against him. On 20.03.2002, arguments were concluded and the parties were allowed to file their written arguments within five days.

4. It has been submitted by the petitioner that nothing was heard by him in the matter until he received an impugned order dated 19.08.2002 issued by respondent N