Judgment :-

Surinder Singh Nijjar, J.

Leave granted.

2. Sarv U.P. Gramin Bank has filed this appeal against the judgment and order dated 16.9.2008 of the High Court of U.P. (Lucknow Bench) in Writ Petition No. 1753 (SB) of 2002. By the aforesaid judgment, the High Court relying upon judgment of this Court in Union of India vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan [(1991) 1 SCC 588] quashed the impugned orders dated 3.4.2000, annexure P-4; 3.4.2002, annexure P-5 and 9.9.2002 annexure P-6to the writ petition with consequential benefits. Liberty has been granted to the Bank to serve fresh show cause notice along with copy of the enquiry report on the writ petitioner (respondent herein) and to pass fresh orders in accordance with law.

3. We may notice here the essential facts leading to the passing of the aforesaid judgment/order of the High Court. The writ petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the respondent) joined Devi Pattan Kshetria Gramin Bank, Gonda (now Sarva U.P. Gramin Bank) as an officer. He was served with two charge sheets dated 9.11.2000 and 8.3.2001 for various acts of omissions and commissions while working at branches Khorhansa and Mahrajganj, Trai district Gonda respectively. He was suspended by Order dated 1.3.2001. Respondent submitted reply to the chargesheet. He denied the charges mentioned therein. Thereafter, two separate departmental enquiries were held, in which the respondent fully participated. On 19.5.2001, the Enquiry Officer submitted the enquiry report with regard to chargesheet dated 9.1.2000. Charge No. 1 has been split up into Charge 1-A and Charge 1-B respectively. Charge No. 1-A has been held to be proved whereas Charge 1-B has been held to be partially proved. Similarly Charges No. 2 to 3 have been split up into two parts each, i.e., Charges 2-A, 2-B; 3-A and 3-B.

Here also Charge 2-A has been held to be proved, Charge 2-B is held to be partially proved; Charge 3-A is said to be proved, 3-B is held to be partially proved.

4. In chargesheet dated 8.3.2001, the Enquiry Officer in its report dated 13.5.2001 also found the same to be proved. The disciplinary authority examined the Enquiry reports and all the relevant documents forming part of the enquiries. Agreeing with the findings of the Enquiry Officer the Disciplinary Authority issued two show cause notices to the respondent proposing the punishment of reduction of pay by six stages permanently.

5. Thereafter the respondent was given an opportunity for a personal hearing by disciplinary authority on each of the Enquiry Reports. Taking into consideration the explanation given by the respondents, the disciplinary authority passed two orders on 3.4.2001 imposing the punishment of "reduction of pay by six stages permanently" and "reduction of pay by four stages" in relation to charge sheets 9.11.2000 and 8.3.2001 respectively.

6. The appeals filed by the respondent against the aforesaid orders of punishment were dismissed by the Board of Directors of the Bank in its meeting dated 4.9.2002. The decision of the Board was communicated to the respondent vide letter dated 9.9.2002.

7. The respondent, therefore, filed writ petition challenging the orders dated 3.4.2002 and 9.9.2003. The Division Bench of the High Court allowed the writ petition only on the ground that since a copy of the enquiry report was not served on the respondent; the action of the petitioner Bank is violative of the principles of natural justice in view of the judgment of the case in Mohd. Ramzan Khan case (supra). It is observed by the High Court as follows:

"Sri Virendra Misra learned counsel for the respondents Bank has not placed any material on record to show that the enquiry report was served on the petitioner. Sri Virendera Misra further argued that the regular enquiry was conducted in which the petitioner had participated. However, the copy of show cause (Annexure-2) which had been served on the petitioner, does not indicate that the enquiry report was served alongwith show cause notice. Ac