Procedural fairness requires that employees facing major penalties be given reasonable opportunities to present a defense and cross-examine witnesses in disciplinary inquiries.

ORDER :

NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J.

The petitioner challenges the punishment of Compulsory Retirement imposed on him pursuant to the disciplinary proceedings conducted with regard to the allegations in the Charge Memo dated 15.02.2013.

2. The facts of the case, precisely, as per the writ affidavit, is as follows:

The petitioner joined the respondent-BankasaClerkin1984, and subsequently obtained promotions and, as of 2010, he became a Scale III Officer. He is stated to have earned recognition for improving the performance of the Branch by achieving loan disbursal and recovery targets. It is alleged that when he worked as Branch Manager at Akulavarighanapur Branch, Warangal District, in the year 2012, he indiscriminately disbursed loans to Kauldars (Tenant Farmers), and demanded and accepted bribes to the tune of Rs.10,000/- to Rs.12,500/- for disbursing/crediting the loan amount to the accounts of the farmers. A preliminary enquiry was conducted on 28.08.2012 and 29.08.2012, wherein nothing could be elicited about the alleged bribes, except for that the petitioner was not available in the bank when the farmers came to the bank for loans. It is alleged that the impatience on the part of some loan applicants led to the complaint and preliminary enquiry, and as nothing came out in the enquiry against the petitioner, a complaint was obtained from the farmers showing a uniform bribe amount of Rs.12,500/-. Based on preliminary enquiry report, the Proceedings dated 16.10.2012 were issued seeking explanation of the petitioner and the petitioner replied to the same on 09.11.2012. Not satisfied with the explanation, a Charge Memo dated 15.02.2013 was issued, to which the petitioner submitted his explanation dated 01.03.2013, however, an enquiry was conducted on 21.05.2013 and 22.05.2013 at Akulavarighanapur, and on 31.05.2013 at Hyderabad, and the enquiry was later postponed to 01.06.2013 the date on which the petitioner sought adjournment as his defense representative could not be present due to a promotion interview, but the respondent proceeded with the enquiry and examined some witnesses and held the enquiry ex parte on that day and the enquiry was posted for 12.08.2013 and the defense representative again could not be present as he got the promotion and posted to Bangalore and the enquiry was posted for 20.08.2013, on which day the witnesses examined on 01.06.2013 were called and only five of them attended and they were cross-examined.And thereafter the written brief of the Presenting Officer dated 05.08.2013 was communicated to the petitioner on 05.10.2013 and within two days, i.e., on 07.10.2013 the Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the disciplinary authority which was communicated to the petitioner on 09.10.2013, and even before submitting the defense of the petitioner, the enquiry report was submitted on 07.10.2013, thereby the defense of the petitioner was not considered at the enquiry report stage. Thereafter, both the defense and the enquiry report were submitted to the Disciplinary Authority and the Authority without looking into the issues raised by the petitioner in the representation dated 21.10.2013, imposed the punishment of Dismissal from Service vide order dated 28.11.2013 by a non-speaking order. Petitioner filed an Appeal before the 2^nd respondent on 26.12.2013, the punishment was modified to that of Compulsory Retirement from service, by order dated 04.07.2013; and the subsequent review petition filed before the 1^st respondent was rejected by order dat