Back
2008 Supreme(Mad) 2101
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. CHANDRU
D. Kannan
Versus
Central Bank of India Central Office Rep. by the Chairman and Managing Director & Others
W.P.No.13408 of 1998
Decided on : 30-06-2008
For the Petitioner:G. Venkataraman for M/s Aiyar & Dolia, Advocates.
For the Respondents:T.M. Hariharan, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a further enquiry must not be conducted as a fresh enquiry, and the disciplinary authority must adhere to the legal framework and precedents established by the Supreme Court.
Headnote:
Enquiry - Disciplinary Proceedings - Bipartite Settlement, CCS (CCA) Rules, Railway Servants (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, Central Reserve Police Force Rules - [Paragraph 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Daftary at a bank, challenged the order for a fresh enquiry after the initial charge against him was not proved. The Division Bench initially upheld the further enquiry, but upon review, it was found that the bank conducted a fresh enquiry, contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court.
Finding of the Court:
The court set aside the orders for the fresh enquiry, allowed the writ petition with costs, and restored the original enquiry report.
Issues: The main issue was whether the bank's further enquiry was actually a fresh enquiry, and if so, whether it was permissible under the law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on legal precedents to establish that the bank's conduct was not authorized by the Bipartite Settlement and was contrary to binding precedents laid down by the Supreme Court.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the orders for the fresh enquiry, restored the original enquiry report, and directed the bank to proceed in accordance with the law within three months.
Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the records.
2. The petitioner was working as a Daftary in the first respondent Bank at its Branch at Mogappair. In this writ petition, he is challenging the order dated 211. 1997 passed by the third respondent disciplinary authority and confirmed by the order dated 05. 1998 passed by the second respondent appellate authority. A further direction was also sought for the first respondent to proceed to conclude the enquiry on the basis of the findings dated 33. 1992.
3. It is seen from the records that the petitioner was charge-sheeted by a charge-memo dated 010. 1991 issued as per Paragraph 19.5 (j) of the first Bipartite settlement. An enquiry was conducted against the petitioner by the Assistant Branch Manager, Anna Salai. In that enquiry, four witnesses were examined and several documents were also filed. On the basis of the materials placed, the Enquiry Officer rendered the following finding:-
"In view of the various details and reasons stated above and also after carefully going through the enquiry proceedings, the Enquiry Officer is of the opinion that the charge against Mr. D. Kannan has not been proved."
4. Instead of taking a decision on the said report one way or the other, the disciplinary authority (third respondent), by his order dated 26. 1993, passed the following order:-
"I have gone through the records of the enquiry held in pursuant to the Charge-sheet RO:PRS:DAD:91-92:349 dated 10. 1991 issued to Mr. D. Kannan, Watchman cum Peon (now Daftary) presently working at Mogappair Branch. Since the Enquiry Officer has not gone into all aspect of charges levelled against Mr. D. Kannan, I order for further enquiry on the same charge sheet dated 10. 1991 is adopted ..."
5. The petitioner filed a writ petition against this order before this Court in W.P. No. 1603 of 1993 challenging the initiation of fresh proceedings and the same was dismissed by an order dated 29. 1993. As against the said order, a writ appeal was filed in W.A. No. 979 of 1993. The said writ appeal was disposed of by a Division Bench vide order dated 04. 1997. The question which arose before the Division Bench was that in the guise of ordering a further enquiry, the respondent Bank was intending to conduct a fresh enquiry.
6. This contention was rejected by the Division Bench and in paragraph 2 of the order, it was observed as follows:-
"We are unable to countenance the said contention. A perusal of the impugned order, in the writ petition dated 26. 1993 of the Disciplinary Authority will go to show that what is ordered is only a further enquiry on the same charge-sheet and not a fresh enquiry as argued by the learned counsel for the Appellant. The Appellant, in our opinion, is not prejudiced in any manner because of the further enquiry now ordered by the Disciplinary authority. The appellant will always have sufficient opportunity to question the correctness of the second report, if any. Since it is only a further enquiry, the report already available on records submitted by the Enquiry Officer can also be relied on by the Appellant at the time of submitting his further explanation to the Enquiry Report. This apart, the first enquiry report has not been superseded at all, and the same forms part of the records. In this view of the matter, we are not inclined to accept both the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellant."
7. After taking advantage of the above said order of the Division Bench, the first respondent conducted a fresh enquiry in which the very same four witnesses examined in the original enquiry, were examined all over again. Apart from those four witnesses, one Scientific Officer from the Forensic Science Department was also examined as a fifth witness.
8. On the basis of the fresh evidence, the Enquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty by his report dated 19. 1997. After obtaining his objections, he was dismissed from service and his furthe
