The judgment emphasizes the limited scope of interference in departmental enquiry proceedings, the principles of natural justice, and the need for demonstrating jurisdictional error or malafide on the part of the authority by the employee.

JUDGMENT

Vishal Mishra, J. - Present Writ Appeal has been filed assailing the order dated 06.02.2006 passed by learned Single Judge in Miscellaneous Petition No.4322 of 1993 dismissing the petition on merits.

2. Facts giving rise to the litigation are that the appellant was posted as Branch Manager at Nandarbad Branch, wherein, he had sanctioned a loan in contravention to the procedure prescribed by the Bank. The appellant has not properly scrutinized the cases and violated the instructions issued by the respondent/Bank from time to time. A decision was taken to initiate departmental enquiry against him and a charge-sheet was issued to the appellant levelling charges that without proper scrutiny and without following the procedure and the guidelines, he has disbursed the loan which appears to be suspicion. He was placed under suspension on 07.04.1984 and a charge-sheet was issued on 24.09.1985.

3. An application was filed by the appellant that a criminal case has been registered against him and the same is pending consideration, therefore, the departmental proceedings be stayed. It was further stated that charges levelled against the appellant are vague. There was no proper explanation by the disciplinary authority regarding the charges and the material on which the disciplinary authority has placed reliance was not supplied to the appellant. It is stated that the record was voluminous and a very short time was granted to the appellant to inspect the record and take notes of the document by visiting the said branch, which does not amount to giving proper opportunity of hearing. It was virtually not possible to the appellant to go through such a voluminous record in a short time. The enquiry officer ordered to nominate a defence assistant to any person who is an employee of the bank. The appellant sought liberty to nominate a person out of the employees of the bank. After conclusion of the departmental enquiry, a punishment of dismissal from service was imposed upon the appellant on 25.03.1991. The same was assailed by the appellant by filing an appeal, which was rejected 04.12.1991. It is argued that none of the grounds raised by the appellant were considered by the authority. No prosecution/management witnesses were examined and directly the enquiry officer has started putting questions on the appellant and such procedure is unknown to law. The appellant was further not permitted to bring assistance of his choice, therefore, there was denial of principle of natural justice. No show cause notice was issued to the appellant with respect to finding of the Enquiry Officer. Therefore, the entire procedure adopted by the authority was perse illegal and unknown to law. The appellant assailed the order before this Court by filing miscellaneous petition, which was dismissed vide impugned order dated 06.02.2006. Hence, the present writ appeal is preferred.

4. It is argued by learned counsel for the appellant that learned writ Court has not taken into consideration the grounds which have been raised by the appellant and only on the basis of conjuncture and surmises, the impugned order has been passed. Learned writ Court has failed to appreciate that non-supplying of the documents to the appellant on which reliance has been placed by the authority, was perse illegal and same cannot said to be done after following the principle of natural justice and fair play. It is argued that the appellant was honorably acquitted in the criminal case, virtually on the same set of evidence, therefore, the aforesaid aspect ought to have been considered by the disciplinary authority while considering the case of the appellant in the departmental enquiry. Placing reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Savai Singh vs. State of Rajasthan reported in AIR 1986 SC 995, Union of India and others vs. V.K. Girdonia, reported in 2003(1) MPLJ 387 and Managing Director, ECIL Hyderabad and others vs. B. Karunakar and others, reported in 1993(4)