The failure to provide crucial documents and examine key witnesses in a departmental inquiry violates natural justice and Article 311(2) of the Constitution, warranting annulment of the imposed penalties.

ORDER :

NAGESH BHEEMAPAKA, J.

Petitioner is stated to have joined the respondent –State Bank of Hyderabad (now merged with State Bank of India) as Clerk-cum-Typist in 1983; he got promotion as Deputy Manager in Middle Management Cadre Scale:II on 01.12.2007. He was transferred to Chennai, Tirupathi and Tarnaka Branch of Hyderabad. While working thereat, during 09.06.2008 and 01.03.2010, on the ground that petitioner committed several misconducts more particularly in respect of rent reimbursement and making outside borrowings without permission of the bank, he was suspended on 01.03.2010. The case of petitioner in this connection is that while working at Chennai in 2001, he took residential accommodation belonging to Dr. Vimal Joseph Devadas after completing formalities and documentation between landlord and the 1^st respondent bank. While so, the bank provided to its officers to retain the leased residential accommodation at the last place of work or at place convenient for the sake of family as the children’s education should not suffer. As petitioner was transferred to Tarnaka Branch, his children’s education was still continuing at Chennai, he retained the leased accommodation by renewing it periodically and as usual the bank was remitting rents to the landlord and for more than eight years, there has been no issue.

Vide disciplinary proceedings, dated 18.12.2010, the 4^th respondent– disciplinary authority & Deputy General Manager served a charge memo on petitioner framing as many as eight charges, for which, on 08.04.2011, he is stated to have submitted written statement, denying the charges. The 4th respondent, not satisfying with the same, appointed the 5^th respondent as Inquiry Officer vide letter dated 11.02.2011. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report on 14.05.2011 holding charges 1 to 5 proved and 6 to 8 not proved. On 07.07.2011, the 3rd respondent – Appointing Authority & Deputy General Manager issued a show cause notice to petitioner indicating punishment of ‘reduction to lower grade from MMGS-II to JMGS-I and placing him at a starting basic pay of JMGS-I i.e. Rs.14,500/- and further, the period of suspension was not treated as duty. The increments in the suspension period was cut and the period of suspension of duty has not been counted as service. Petitioner submitted explanation on 18.07.2011 stating that enquiry was not conducted as per rules and documents were not shown or given as required to submit the explanation. Further, he had stated that landlord who is the prime evidence was not examined and Sri K. Venugopal, whose report was taken into consideration for establishing the charges was not examined in the enquiry and petitioner was not given opportunity to rebut the evidence of Sri Venugopal. However, the 3^rd respondent vide impugned proceedings dated 23.07.2011 imposed penalty of ‘reduction to lower grade from MMGS-II to JMGS-I and placed petitioner at starting basic pay of JMGS-I i.e.Rs.14,500/-. The petitioner will earn regular increment after completion of every year from the date of such placement. The period of suspension will be treated as off-duty whereby he will not be eligible for any pa