Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
YATINDRA SINGH, R. C. PANDEY
MADHAV PRASAD - Appellant
Versus
DEPUTY MANAGING DIRECTOR - Respondents
C. M. W. P. 29446 Of 1990
Decided On : 05/25/2004
charged officer - entitlement to preliminary inquiry report and correspondence - State Bank of India - [Section 12, Chapter XIII of the Bank's book of Instructions, para 12 Chapter XIII] - The charged officer sought the preliminary inquiry report and correspondence, personal hearing before the appellate authority, and detailed reasons for the inquiry report. The court found that the charged officer was not entitled to the preliminary inquiry report and correspondence as they were not relied upon to prove the charges against the petitioner. The court also held that the charged officer was not entitled to personal hearing before the appellate authority. The court further ruled that the appointing authority was not required to record detailed reasons for the order when agreeing with the findings of the inquiry report.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Branch Manager at the State Bank of India, was suspended and given multiple charge-sheets. The inquiry found the charges proved, leading to dismissal from service. The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the impugned orders, alleging bias, forced signing of blank papers, denial of document inspection, and lack of reasonable opportunity. The petitioner also raised issues regarding the examination of witnesses and the requirement of detailed reasons for the orders.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned orders were not vitiated due to bias and that the petitioner's claim of being forced to sign blank papers was not credible. The court also determined that the petitioner was allowed to inspect the documents and was given a reasonable opportunity. The court held that the inquiry was not vitiated and that the petitioner was not entitled to personal hearing before the appellate authority. The court further ruled that the impugned orders were not illegal and that detailed reasons were not required from the appointing authority when agreeing with the inquiry report.
Issues: The main issues involved in the case were the entitlement of the charged officer to the preliminary inquiry report and correspondence, personal hearing before the appellate authority, and detailed reasons for the inquiry report. The court also addressed allegations of bias, forced signing of blank papers, denial of document inspection, lack of reasonable opportunity, and examination of witnesses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the charged officer was not entitled to the preliminary inquiry report and correspondence as they were not relied upon to prove the charges. The court also determined that the charged officer was not entitled to personal hearing before the appellate authority. Additionally, the court ruled that the appointing authority was not required to record detailed reasons for the order when agreeing with the findings of the inquiry report.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, finding that the impugned orders were not vitiated and that the petitioner was not entitled to the relief sought.
( 1 ) THE main questions involved in this writ petition are :whether the charged officer is entitled to get the copy of the preliminary inquiry report and the correspondence in that regard or not. Whether the charged officer is entitled for personal hearing before the appellate authority or not. Whether the disciplinary/appointing authority and the appellate authority are required to record detailed/separate reasons, even if they agree with the findings of the inquiry report. The Facts
( 2 ) THE petitioner was employed with the state Bank of India (the Bank ). At the relevant time, he was posted as the Branch Manager of raja Ka Darwaja, Varanasi branch of the Bank (the concerned Branch ). He was suspended on november 8, 1982 and was given a charge-sheet on May 19, 1983 levelling three charges (the first charge-sheet) (for the details of the charges see Endnote- 1 ).
( 3 ) THE inquiry in pursuance of the first charge-sheet was conducted by Sri N. N. Srivastava. No witness was examined in this inquiry. A report dated April 26, 1984 was prepared; charge No. 1 was not proved but remaining charges were proved. However, this report was not submitted. The petitioner was given a second charge-sheet on November 5, 1985 levelling two charges (the second charge-sheet) (for details of the charges see endnote-2) and a third charge-sheet on november 14, 1985 levelling four charges (the third charge-sheet) (for details of the charges see Endnote- 3 ).
( 4 ) THE inquiry in the second and the third charge-sheet was conducted by a different officer. It was initially entrusted to Sri R. P. Bhatnagar. In this inquiry July 27, 1987 was fixed for production of the Banks documents and witnesses. The petitioner filed an application for adjournment. This application was rejected on July 27, 1987. The Bank produced the documents. The statement of Sri s. K. Dhusiya who had become the Branch manager of the concerned Branch, was recorded on July 28, 1987. He is the only witness examined on behalf of the Bank in the enquiry.
( 5 ) THE petitioner filed an application in may, 1988 to change the Inquiry officer. It was allowed on June 14, 1988 and Sri R. P. Srivastava was appointed as inquiry officer. According to the Bank, Sri S. K. Dhusiya was produced for cross-examination and was cross-examined by the petitioner on December 29, 1988. This is disputed by the petitioner. According to him, he was forced to sign blank papers and thereafter the proceedings for december 28 and 29, 1988 were filled up. The inquiry was closed on December 29, 1988 and the parties were asked to submit their briefs. The presenting officer of the Bank submitted his brief on January 7, 1989. It was sent to the petitioner, who submitted his brief on March 20, 1989. The inquiry officer found all charges in the second and third charge-sheets to be proved. This report along with the report on the first charge-sheet was submitted on April 12, 1989.
( 6 ) THE disciplinary authority agreed with the findings recorded by the Inquiry officer and submitted his recommendation on June 5, 1989 to the appointing authority with recommendation that the petitioner be dismissed from service. The appointing authority by his order dated July 20, 1989 agreed with the disciplinary authority and dismissed the petitioner from service. The petitioner filed an appeal which was also dismissed on May 13, 1990. Hence the present writ petition. Points for Determination
( 7 ) WE have heard Sri R. N. Singh, senior advocate assisted by Sri G. K. Singh, counsel for the petitioner and Sri A. C. Tripathi, counsel for the Bank. Following points arise for determination in this case: (I) Whether the impugned orders are bad due to bias. (ii) Whether the petitioner was forced to sign the blank papers that were utilised to write proceeding for December 28 and 29, 1988. (iii) Whether the petitioner has been permitted to inspect the documents. (iv) The defence representative was not present on all days in the in
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
