JUDGMENT Rakesh Sharma, J.
1. Heard Sri S.P. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Virendra Misra, learned Counsel appearing for the opposite parties.
2. Under challenge in an order of dismissal of 31.12.2001, dismissing the petitioner from the post of Manager, Punjab National Bank, Rail Bazar Branch, Kanpur and the order dated 9.7.2002, passed by the appellate authority, rejecting the appeal submitted by the petitioner against the order of dismissal.
3. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was initially appointed as Clerk-cum-typist in New Bank of India in 1977 which was merged with Punjab National Bank in 1993. The petitioner was promoted as Officer Scale-11 in Punjab National Bank, and at the relevant time, he was working as Manager in Punjab National Bank Branch at U.P. Stock Exchange, Kanpur city. From the Stock Exchange Branch, he was transferred to Rail Bazar Branch in the city of Kanpur. In November, 2000, the petitioner was suspended vide order dated 24,11.2000 which was challenged by filing a Writ Petition No. 53275 of 2000, J.G. Puri v. Senior Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank, Kanpur, by the petitioner. This petition was disposed of by this Hon'ble Court on 13.2.2001 with a direction to the competent authority to complete the inquiry against the petitioner preferably within four months from the date of production of a certified copy of the Court's order, in accordance with law. The petitioner was served a charge-sheet dated 24.3.2001. The accusation against the petitioner was that he connived with various parties to sanction the overdraft limits against demat shares and unauthorized accommodated them involving other staff members in the process in violation of Bank's prescribed guidelines/procedures to pass on undue benefit to these parties, thereby defrauding and causing pecuniary loss to the Bank.
4. The cases of five account holders were quoted to bring home the said charge in the imputation of the charges by the Bank. The names of Sri S.N. Upadhyay, Senior Inspector, Rajendra Kumar Tiwari, Manager, Nagesh Srivastava, Ravi Kumar Gupta were cited as witnesses of the Bank to depose against the petitioner during the inquiry. The petitioner had submitted a detailed reply dated 14.5.2002, denying the charges in toto.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that on 26.11.2000, an FIR was also lodged against the petitioner by the Bank in P.S. Gwal Toli, Kanpur under Sections 409, 419, 420, 466, 467, 468 and 471, IPC. This FIR contains the same charges and allegations which were levelled in the charge-sheet dated 24.3.2001. The Case Crime No. 222 of 2000 was registered against the petitioner. The petitioner filed a writ petition in this Court at Allahabad and an interim order was granted by a Division Bench of this Court, staying the arrest of the petitioner. The petitioner has laid stress that the allegations contained in the FIR are very much the same as mentioned in the charge-sheet. The petitioner submitted a letter on 29.4.2001, to the General Manager (Personnel), Punjab National Bank, New Delhi to keep the departmental inquiry initiated against the petitioner, in abeyance as long as the criminal case on the same allegations, charges was pending. The petitioner has submitted that if the disciplinary proceeding is allowed to proceed, the petitioner would be compelled to disclose his defence which he would take in defending himself in the criminal case. There would be possibility of contradictory finding being recorded on the same issues by (he Criminal Court as well as by the disciplinary authority/inquiry officer, . The petitioner had also made the similar request to the disciplinary authority on 5.5.2001.
6. The General Manager (Personnel), Punjab National Bank and the disciplinary authority did not pass any order on the applications submitted by the petitioner on 29.4.2001 and on 5.5.2001. The disciplinary authority did not suspend the holding of inquiry pending the decision of the criminal case. The punishing authority has relied on the decision of the Inquiry Officer that there was no bar against, continuing the disciplinary inquiry during the pendency of criminal case. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner that in the peculiar facts and circumstances, the disciplinary authority committed a manifest error of jurisdiction in proceeding with the inquiry without waiting for the outcome of the criminal case, the charge-sheet was submitted and the trial was pending. The result was that in his anxiety to refrain from divulging his defence before the competent Court dealing with criminal case, the petitioner could not a full-fledged defence before the disciplinary authority as he wanted to. The petitioner has ultimately suffered in the departmental inquiry. The Bank arbitrarily decided to proceed with the disciplinary inquiry against the petitioner and one Sri U.S. Awasthi, an officer of the same rank, as held by the petitioner, was appointed as Inquiry Officer, ignoring the petitioner's objections. The Inquiry Officer cannot be of the same rank. Sri U.S. Awasthi was also working as Manager Branch Office, Naya Ganj, Kanpur as Scale II Officer of the same rank officer as held by the petitioner and as such he could not have been able to conduct the inquiry dispassionately in the nature of things.
7. In view of these facts, it was unwarranted under law to appoint Sri U.S. Awasthi as Inquiry Officer because under the circumstances of the ease some other officer higher in rank than the petitioner should have been appointed as Inquiry Officer.
8. The petitioner relying on Regulation 6 (7) of Punjab National Bank Officer-Employees (Disciplinary and Appeal) Regulations, 1977 has written a letter on 16.5.2001 to the management of the Bank to allow him to take services of one Sri D.K. Jain, an officer of Bank, Karan Pur Branch of Dehradun as defence assistant. Sri D.K. Jain has agreed to act as defence assistant of the petitioner vide a letter dated 15.5.2001. The Inquiry Officer has rejected the request of the petitioner on 17.5.2001. This has caused denial of providing defence assistant to the petitioner as per aforementioned Regulation 6(7), applicable on bank's employees. The reason given by the disciplinary authority was that Sri D.K. Jain was under suspension and as such he could not act as defence assistant.
9. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner, the suspension of an employee does not snap his employment with the Bank and Sri D.K. Jain was still an employee of the Bank, covered by its rules and regulations. He was merely made functionless but had remained a Bank's Officer for all the purposes. Since Sri Jain's assistance was not allowed to the petitioner he made another request for appointment of one Sri A.K. Gaba, Assistant Manager of the Bank posted at Bijnor. Since Sri Gaba was not available, the petitioner requested for adjournment and for fixing the date of inquiry after 4.6.2001 but the Inquiry Officer did not agree to this request and fix 29.5.2001. The petitioner was compelled to go without his defence assistant. The petitioner written several letters for providing proper defence assistance, but to no avail. However, at last the petitioner had no arrange for getting services of one Sri Roopesh Gupta posted at Agra to depute him as defence Assistant. The petitioner was compelled to take assistance of Sri Roopesh Gupta who had no experience of participation in departmental inquiries. If Sri D.K. Jain and A.K. Gaba could have been provided as defence assistants to the petitioner, he could have put forth his defence in a proper way. Thus the petitioner was denied the assistance of a defence assistant of his choice. The reasonable opportunity of defence was denied to the petitioner.
10. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has laid much stress on the point that the petitioner was not supplied by the copies of various documents cited in the charge-sheet. The petitioner was not provided with the documents on which the petitioner wanted to rely for defence himself. The petitioner has given details of the documents in para 21 of the petition which were neither supplied to him nor inspection was allowed to him. The account opening form of current account holder, Sri V.K. Agarwal, true copy of the request letter of Sri Ravi Kumar Gupta dated 22.2.2000 and deviation registers from 1.6.1999 to 30.6.1990 were not made available to the petitioner. He was not allowed the inspection of the registers. These deviation registers are maintained by the Second Officer of the Branch in which he inscribed the deviations made in the Bank transactions, affairs in the particular branch date-wise and in case of any deviation, the entry is signed by the Branch Manager besides the second man inscribing the main. This was a material document. The record must have been provided to the petitioner or the petitioner should have been allowed inspection of the same. This was not done by the Inquiry Officer. The Bank produced four listed witnesses; namely, Sri S.N. Upadhyaya, Rajendra Tiwari, Ravi Kumar Gupta and Nagesh Srivastava during the departmental inquiry. The petitioner was not afforded opportunity of cross-examining these witnesses.
11. Besides the above listed witnesses, the Bank produced 4 more witnesses in an afterthought manner to fill up the lacuna. These four witnesses were Sri Sailesh Tripathi, an outsider, Sri Ravi Shanker Bajpai, the officer who had recommended the loan, Sri B.L. Sharma, Assistant Manager who recommended some loans. Anil Kumar Agarwal, account holder. These 4 witnesses were not cited in the charge-sheet nor the names of these persons were indicated in any other document relied upon in support of the charge-sheet. These 4 witnesses presented in a sudden move rather in a dramatic manner. The learned Counsel for the petitioner had demonstrated that these 4 witnesses were produced by the Inquiry Officer without giving prior proper intimation. When the defence assistant sought copies of some papers and sometime for him to take instructions and prepare himself for cross-examination of these 4 subsequently produced witnesses, the Inquiry Officer ordained to cross-examine the witnesses then and there and he was not allowed any time to prepare himself for cross-examining these four witnesses. It was not indicated to the petitioner as to what to be deposed stated by these 4 witnesses who were not cited in the charge-sheet. Since the petitioner was not personally attending the inquiry due to threat to his life at Stock Exchange building, the defence assistant, Sri Roopesh could not be briefed to cross-examine these witnesses. According to learned Counsel for the petitioner there was eminent danger to the life of the petitioner. In view of the threat given to the petitioner that he should keep away from Stock Exchange building, the petitioner sought change of place of the inquiry but his request was turned down. The venue was not changed due to reasons best known to the authorities of the Bank. Thus no reasonable opportunity of cross-examining the non-listed witnesses, strangers to the charge-sheet was afforded to the petitioner. To demonstrate this fact, the proceedings of inquiry of 2.6.2001 have been placed by the petitioner as Annexure 18 to the writ petition.
12. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that one Sri Rajendra Tiwari who was examined as witness against the petitioner was also the Presenting Officer. He was present throughout the deposition of other witnesses and later on he produced himself as the witness in the last so as to fill up the lacuna in the management's case. According to the norms of the Bank, if the Presenting Officer is to be a witness, then he should be examined in the beginning of the evidence recording but In the case of the petitioner this guideline was violated and Sri Rajendra Tiwari was allowed to first listen to the depositions and cross-examination of other witnesses and he produced himself in the last to fill up the lacuna and strengthened the case of the Bank. As per petitioner, Sri Rajendra Tiwari, the successor officer of the Bank's Branch, an officer of the same rank held by the petitioner and also being a witness against the petitioner was naturally interested in the fructification of his efforts as Presenting Officer i.e. in the indictment of the petitioner in any manner. Sri Rajendra Tiwari, a material witness of the Bank and Presenting Officer could not function dispassionately as a fair and unbiased Presenting Officer. This has vitiated the whole inquiry.
13. The petitioner was denied opportunity of putting forth his defence. He wanted to examine three witnesses in his defence; namely Sri O.K. Misra, an employee-representative of Mr. Arihant Jain, Mr. Shailendra Tripathi, a contractor and Mr. P.K. Sadana, a retired Manager of the Bank. The petitioner was asked to indicate the relevancy of these witnesses and in response to this the petitioner disclosed the relevancy of these three witnesses as stated in para 24 of the writ petition. The petitioner has clarified that how the statements of Sri O.K. Mishra, Sri P.K. Sadana and Sri Shailendra Tripathi would be relevant in defence of the petitioner. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has led this Court to Paras 24, 25 and 26 of the writ petition in support of his arguments. The Inquiry Officer has declined to permit the petitioner to produce these witnesses vide order dated 13.6.2001. The proceedings of 13.6.2001 have been placed along with the writ petition. The petitioner submitted in detail that Sri Shailendra Tripathi had written to Inquiry Officer showing that he has been compelled to depose against the petitioner by the Presenting Officer, Sri Rajendra Tiwari. A. copy of the letter dated 13.6,2001 written by Sri Shailendra Tripathi has been read by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Ever then neither the Presenting Officer of the Bank nor the Inquiry Officer considered it necessary to recall the management's witnesses and make the position clear from him. This has vitiated the departmental trial. Sri Shailendra Tripathi has categorically submitted that he was compelled to depose and give witnesses against the petitioner.
14. The petitioner has requested the Inquiry Officer to change the venue of the inquiry i.e. Stock Exchange Branch, Kanpur. After petitioner's transfer from this Branch, he started getting threatening calls posing danger to his life from one Arihant Jain and his associates who have been found by the police authorities to have bungled crores of rupees in various branches of this Bank. Sri Arihant Jain wanted to influence the petitioner also. In view of this the petitioner requested the Inquiry Officer to hold the inquiry at some other place where the petitioner could attend inquiry and take part in the same and properly brief his defence assistant, Sri Roopesh Gupta at the time of the inquiry. Several letters were written by the petitioner in this regard. The copies of two letters dated 11.5.2001 and 23.5,2001 for change of the venue of the inquiry have been placed as Annexures 21 and 22 to the writ petition. The inquiry could have been held at Lucknow or at some other branch except Stock Exchange Branch. The last date for inquiry was fixed at Lucknow which would have been a proper place. Due to threat and imminent danger to the life of the petitioner, he could not attend any of the session of the departmental inquiry personally. He could not effectively give brief to his defence assistant, Sri Roopesh Gupta and he could not personally cross-examine the witnesses, prepare the defence. The petitioner was compelled for not. taking part in inquiry as the venue of the inquiry was not changed. There was no reason for not allowing this request of the petitioner. The authorities of the Bank were adamant at holding the inquiry at Stock Exchange Branch only.
15. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that Sri B.L. Sharma, Assistant Manager and Sri Ravi Sharikar Bajpai, the officers of the Branch were produced by the management as witnesses against the petitioner during departmental trial. These officers were named as co-delinquents in the preliminary inquiry report and they have also now been issued charge-sheets on the same ground and in respect of the same Bank's accounts as the petitioner. The evidence of co-accused (co-delinquents) cannot be relied upon a co-accused as the same cannot be said to be independent and dispassionate evidence. The Bank had issued charge-sheet against Sri B.L. Sharma and Ravi Sharikar Bajpai after concluding the inquiry against the petitioner and using their evidences, depositions against the petitioner. A temptation was given to these witnesses that if they depose against the petitioner they would be let off. These witnesses were interested in shifting the blame on the petitioner in order to find their own safely. It was indicated by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that: after their depositions were over, concluding the inquiry and punishing the petitioner, these (Co officers were also issued with identical charge-sheet in a preplanned manner. Thus the reliance placed on their depositions was wholly illegal. The Inquiry Officer has illegally found the charges proved against the petitioner. These charges were based on interested witnesses, strangers to the inquiry proceedings. The statements of such witnesses have been relied upon whose names were not cited in the charge-sheet and other documents. The persons who themselves were implicated as of petitioner were produced as witnesses with ulterior motive to punish the petitioner. The inquiry has been conducted with pre-determined mind to punish (he petitioner. The whole inquiry is vitiated in view of the aforementioned submissions.
16. The petitioner has submitted his comments on the Inquiry Officer's findings on 20.10.2001, denying each of the charge and the conclusion arrived at by the Inquiry Officer, ignoring the replies submitted by the petitioner, the impugned order of dismissal was passed on 31.12.2001. He preferred a statutory appeal against the order of dismissal and on 14.2.2002 this appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority on 9.7.2002, without application of mind and in a mechanical manner with predetermined mind and pre-judging the issues. The petitioner has strenuously argued that he was neither afforded opportunity of personal hearing by the disciplinary authority and nor by the appellate authority. The petitioner had even specifically prayed for allowing a personal hearing before the appellate authority in the memo of appeal itself. Same request has been made before the disciplinary authority also but. neither of the two authorities, disciplinary and appellate authorities had afforded opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Under the scheme of the service regulations, the petitioner ought to have been given opportunity of personal hearing to put forth his case before the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner could not remain personally present on the dates of the inquiry as the venue of the inquiry was not changed. He would have been at least allowed an opportunity of personal hearing by the punishing authority and the appellate authority. The appellate authority did not deal with the various grounds taken in the memo of appeal. He did not meet with the submissions, arguments contained in the memo of appeal before upholding the findings and conclusions recorded by the disciplinary authority. The appellate order has been passed without application of mind in a stereotyped manner. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the appellate authority has raised new issues, which were not raised either in the charge-sheet or by the Inquiry Officer or by the disciplinary authority. The appellate authority has recorded its own findings on the new issues, without affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. As per petitioner's Counsel, neither the charge-sheet contained any allegation to the effect that the Pledge Master's report: should have been signed by two General Power of Attorney Holders. The Inquiry Officer also did not raise any such point and even the disciplinary authority also did not raise any such question. However, the appellate authority at the appellate stage observed that out of the two officers who had signed the pledge master report the GPA No. of one officer was mentioned but the same was not mentioned in respect of the other. As a mutter of fact, in thousands of cases, similar letters had been issued by the same branch and if this question had been raised at the inquiry stage, umpteen number of instances could have been shown. The petitioner's 25 years unblemished career has not. been taken into account by the authorities of the Bank and he has been falsely implicated. The Bank has committed manifest, error in proceeding with the departmental inquiry against the petitioner when at the same time criminal inquiry on the same charges was pending against him.
17. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted the following judgments in support of his submissions :
(1) Ram. Chandra v. Union of India, 1986 (2) SLR, 608 (2) S.L. Loona v. P.N.B. and Ors., Domestic Enquiries Law Journal (1992) 46 (3) Chandra Tiwari v. U.P. Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd., 2003 (2) LBESR 671 (4) State Bank of India, v. K.P. Narayan Kutti, 2003 (1) UPLBEC 568' (5) P.N.B. and Ors. v. Chief Personal Authority, (6) P.N. Srivasiava v. State of U.P. and Ors., 1999 (1) ESC 719 (7) Sunil. P. Chauhan and Ors. v. R.D.D.E. and Ors., 1999 (1) LCD 629 (8) Hardwari Lal v. State of U.P., 2000 SCC (L & S) 85 (9) Ser Bahadur v. Union of India, 2002 (3) ESC 145 (SC) (10) Judgment of Civil Appeal No. 3617 of 1997 (SC) dated 5.6.1997 (11) P.O. Kakkerv. Chairman/ Managing Director, United Commercial Bank. 1999 (3) ESC 2402 (All) (12) C. Chcnga Reddi] and Ors. v. State of U.P., .
18. Sri Virendra Misra appearing for the Punjab National Bank has submitted that departmental inquiry against the petitioner was held in accordance with statutory regulations and after following the principles of natural justice. Accusation against the petitioner was that over-draft limit was not properly sanctioned by the petitioner showing various demat shares as security. Later on, it was found that all the letters relating to pledge of the demat shares shown to have been issued by the Branch Office. Parliament Street, New Delhi and all the depository participant, Stock Holding Corporation of India were found to be fake and consequently the outstanding in these accounts were rendered clean and are difficult of recovery. The petitioner was posted as Manager at Branch Office, U.P. Stock Exchange, Kanpur of Punjab National Bank. The petitioner had mis-conducted and was negligent in discharging his duties as manager. He had caused loss to the Bank by conniving with various authorities to sanction the over-draft limit and he unauthorisedly accommodated them with improper motive. The petitioner has violated the Bank's prescribed guidelines/procedure to pass an undue benefit to some parties who had defrauded the Bank. In view of these serious charges, the petitioner was suspended on 24.11.2000. A charge-sheet was issued against him on 24.3.2001, requiring the petitioner to submit his statement of defence within 10 days. When the petitioner did not file his defence within the stipulated period, reminder was issued on 17.4.2001. An Inquiry Officer was appointed on 25.4.2001 who had fixed 1.5.2001 for holding preliminary inquiry. On 29.4,2001, the petitioner made an application for staying the departmental proceedings pending criminal case and also to provide him assistance of a Lawyer. This request was turned down by the Inquiry Officer. However, he was allowed assistance of a fellow Bank's employee. The petitioner did not. attend the preliminary proceedings despite opportunity being given to him vide letters dated 5.5.2001, 10,5.2001 and 14.5.2001. The Inquiry Officer had fixed several dates to hold the inquiry.
19. The learned Counsel for the Punjab National Bank has urged that Inquiry Officer had allowed the petitioner to inspect the record and documents on 16.5.2001, fixing 17.5.2001 for this purpose. The petitioner has submitted his reply on 14.5.2001, denying the charges levelled against him. The petitioner neither inspected the documents nor submitted the list of defence documents. On 16.5.2001, the petitioner intimated the Inquiry Officer that he wanted to take assistance of one Sri D.K. Jain, an Officer of Dehradun Branch of Punjab National Bank. Sri D.K. Jain was to act as his defence representative. This request was not allowed by the Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer had fixed 22.5.2000 as the date of inquiry but the petitioner did not attend the proceedings. The management's documents cited in support of the charges were taken on record. It was decided by the Inquiry Officer to proceed ex-parte, fixing next date i.e. 23.5.2001 for inquiry. However, on the request of the petitioner, the matter was adjourned for 28.5.2001. On this date i.e. on 28.5.2001, the petitioner did not present himself to submit a list of defence documents. He was permitted to take assistance of one Sri Roopesh Gupta, an employee of the Bank to act on petitioner's behalf as his defence representative. The Inquiry Officer had fixed 25.5.2001, the date for production of witnesses by the Bank. On the date fixed for inquiry i.e. 30.5.2001, the petitioner did not attend and send a letter, authorising Sri Roopesh Gupta to defend him. Sri Roopesh Gupta was authorised to cross-examine the witnesses of management. Accordingly, the inquiry was conducted at Stock Exchange Branch of the Bank at. Kanpur on 31.5.2001, 1, 2, 11, 12 and 13th June, 2001. The petitioner did not take part in the proceedings. However, these proceedings were attended by Sri Roopesh Gupta, defence representative. The inquiry had further proceeded on 14.6.2001. The petitioner's statement was recorded and the proceedings came to an end after submission of written briefs.
20. On the basis of above mentioned chronology of events. Sri Virendra Misra, learned Counsel for the Bank has tried to defend departmental inquiry held against the petitioner. The petitioner was afforded opportunity of hearing at all the stages of the departmental inquiry. The petitioner himself did not co-operate with the Inquiry Officer. The charges were found proved against the petitioner. A full-fledged inquiry was conducted strictly adhering to the principles of natural justice and after following the regulations of the Bank on the subject by the competent authority. There was no procedural defect or irregularity in conducting the departmental inquiry proceedings. The Inquiry Officer or punishing authority have rightly came to the conclusion that due to petitioner's negligence some parties had diverted huge amount of public in Bank in jeopardy. The respondents were agreed with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and rightly dismissed the petitioner from the services of the Bank by a detailed reason, and speaking order on 31.12.2001.
21. The learned Counsel for the Bank has submitted that, this Hon'ble Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may not. act as an appellate Court and reappreciate the evidence and reverse the findings given by the Inquiry Officer. As per legal position and the verdict of Hon'ble apex Court, the scope of writ jurisdiction of this Court is very limited. The petitioner has utterly failed to point out any definite procedural irregularity in the inquiry.
22. The learned Counsel for the Bank in support of his submission has submitted that there can be no judicial review of the disciplinary proceedings and in support of his submissions, he has placed following judgments of Supreme Court of India :
(1) Ganesh San/a Ram Sirur v. State Bank of India, (2) Damoh Pannct Sagar Rural Regional Bank v. Munna Lal Jain, 2005 AIR SCW 95.
(3) Union of India v, P. Chandra Mauli, .
(4) Sub Divisional Officer Konch v. Mahraj Singh, 2003 (9) SCC 1991.
(5) CMD United Commercial Bank v. P.C. Kakkar, .
(6) JR.M. UPSRTC Etawah v. Hoti Lal and Anr., 2003 (2) ESC 97 (SC) (7) Union of India v. Warain Singh, 2002 (3) ESC 42 (SC).
(8) Kumaun Mandal Vikas Nigam v. Girza Shankar Pant.. 2001 (1) SCC 182.
(9) High Court of Judicature at Bombay v. Shashikant S. Pai.il, .
(10) Union Bank of India v. Vishwa Mohan, .
(11) Disciplinary Authority v. Nijunj Bchari. .
(12) B.C. Chaturvediv. Union of India, , (13) Bharat Petroleum Corporation v, Maharaslilra General Karngar Union, .
(14) Karri Pro sad Gupta v. Allahabad Bank and Ors.. 2004 (1) ESC 400.
23. As far as supply of necessary documents and inspection of record is concerned, the learned Counsel for the Bank has submitted that the petitioner was afforded opportunity to inspect the documents, but the petitioner himself did not inspect the records. However, it has been admitted during the arguments that some documents, ledgers, accounts and registers could not be supplied to the petitioner as these were bulky documents and were kept in the Stock Exchange Branch of the Bank. The petitioner did not attend the proceedings at Stock Exchange Branch at Kanpur city, Sri Virendra. Misra, learned Counsel for the Bank has relied upon a judgment of Indian Overseas Dank v. I.O.B. Officers Association, , in support of his submissions that the employees' right of representation during inquiry through a representative of his choice is not absolute and is governed under the relevant rules. In the present case, the petitioner had himself refused to participate in the inquiry without any valid reasons. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there was no violation of principles of natural justice as alleged by the petitioner. The provisions of Article 311 are not applicable in the case of employees of the Bank. He has relied two judgments Bank of India v. Apurha Kumar Saha, ; and Shri Ram v. Bank of Baroda and Ors., 1993 (2) UPLBEC 1392, in support of his submissions.
24. Sri Virendra Misra during the course of the arguments has admitted that opportunity of personal hearing was not allowed to the petitioner by the punishing authority, appointing authority and the appellate authority. According to him, as per the scheme of Punjab National Bunk's Officer-Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1997 and as per scheme and procedure of inquiry provided in 1997 regulations, there is no necessity of providing opportunity of personal hearing to a delinquent employee, It is not imperative to afford opportunity of personal hearing to an employee who has assailed the order of dismissal. Thus even if the petitioner has not been afforded the opportunity of personal hearing/oral hearing, it cannot be said that proper opportunity was not allowed to him to defend himself. He has relied on a judgment of State Bank of Patiala v. Mahendra Kumar Singhal, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 463, in support of his submissions. The petitioner was already allowed the assistance of his defence representative, Sri Roopesh Gupta, an employee of the Bank. The inquiry had to be completed expeditiously as per the directions of the High Court contained in the judgment and order dated 13.2.2001 passed in Writ Petition No. 53275 of 2000 filed at Allahabad.
25. As far as holding of two inquiries, one departmental inquiry and other judicial is concerned, Sri Virendra Misra appearing for the Bank has submitted that the said inquiries can be held simultaneously. Petitioner's request for staying the departmental inquiry was rightly rejected as the allegations made in the charge-sheet and the FIR lodged against the petitioner, were quite different.
26. During the pendency of a criminal case, the departmental inquiry can be held against the delinquent employee. This Court has already directed the Bank authorities to complete the inquiry within four months. The appointment of an Inquiry Officer of the same rank is permissible tinder the scheme of relevant service regulations of 1977. The Bank has admitted in the counter-affidavit that the Presenting Officer for the Bank Sri Rajendra Tiwari was examined by the Bank and there is no legal infirmity in doing so.
27.. Sri Shailendra Tripathi, the management's witness who had deposed as Bank's witness was not required to be called back by the Inquiry Officer for cross-examination by the petitioner. The appellate authority did not raise any new issue as alleged by the petitioner.
28. I have heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record and judicial pronouncements cited by the parties in the present case.
29. The departmental inquiry was initiated on 24.11.2000. The charge-sheet was issued against the petitioner on 24.3.2001. The charges contained in the charge-sheet are based on oral and documentary evidences. By submitting some letters, the petitioner had demanded the copies of some material documents from the Inquiry Officer. The account opening form of current account holder, Sri V.K. Aggarwal, request letter of Ravi Kumar Gupta dated 22.2.2001, a current account holder 1360 of the deviation register from 1.6.1999 to 30.6.2000 as maintained by second officer of the Branch were not supplied to the petitioner. According to Sri S.P. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, all these documents were material documents which were necessary for the petitioner to prove himself innocent from the charges. The Deviation Register was maintained by the second officer of the Bank's Branch in which he inscribed the deviations made in the Bank, day to day transactions and affairs taking place in the Bank. With this register, the petitioner could have demonstrated before the Inquiry Officer that, he had acted bonafidely and honestly while discharging his duties as Manager of the Stock Exchange Branch of the Bank. The second officer has also formed the same opinion while dealing with the demat shares and other securities etc. furnished by the parties, seeking loan from the Bank. It has been indicated in the counter-affidavit, that the petitioner neither inspected the documents nor submitted the list of defence witnesses on 16.5.2001. There is nothing on record to show as to how the petitioner's applications for supply of the documents and inspection of the record were dealt with and what orders were passed on the same. Vague and bald reply has been given in para 16 of the counter-affidavit meeting the specific allegations made by the petitioner in para 21 of the writ petition.
30. In view of this fact, the judgments cited by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of admission of the pleadings i.e. P.N. Srivastava v. State of U.P. and Ors., 1999 (1) ESC 719; and Smt P. Chauhan and Ors. v. R.D.D.E. and Ors., 1999 LCD 629, supports the case of the petitioner that the documents were not supplied to him.
31. It appears from the record that the Bank was guided by the consideration that the inquiry had to be somehow completed within a period of four months as per observations and directions of this Court elated 13.2.2001 passed in Writ Petition No. 53275 of 2000. The inquiry proceedings were held hastily as is evident from the dates fixed by the Inquiry Officer for holding the inquiry i.e. on 31.5.2001, 1, 2, 11. 12, 13th, June, 2001, without, applying the mind and dealing with the various applications submitted by the petitioner for supply of documents, cross-examining the witnesses and produce his defence.
32. Sri S.P. Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that at the outset i.e. on 29.4.2001, the petitioner wrote a letter to the General Manager, requesting that the departmental! inquiry be stayed during the pendency of the criminal trial. This request was turn down. I have gone through the contents of the FIR and he charge-sheet and other materials on record and the relevant judicial pronounce ments of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and of this Court. I have also gone through judgments passed by this Court on 13.2.2001 in Writ. Petition No. 53275 of 2000.
33. A Division Bench of this Court had directed the appropriate authorities of the Bank to conclude the inquiry within the specified period in view of these facts, I am of the opinion that there was no reason for staying the departmental proceedings and the authorities of the Bank were justified in carrying on with the departmental trial.
34. The record reveals that the petitioner had sought change of Inquiry Officer as Sri U.S. Awasthi was an officer on the same rank i.e. Scale II Officer of the Bank, Some superior officer could have been appointed as Inquiry Officer to hold the inquiry. The Bank has defended the appointment of Sri U.S. Awasthi as inquiry Officer on the ground that he was senior to the petitioner as a Scale II Officer. Although there is nothing in the service regulations of 1997, preventing an officer of the same rank to hold the inquiry. If would have been appropriate that some superior officer of the Bank could have held the inquiry. The Inquiry Officer being of the same rank and scale working in the same region could not have been able to conduct the inquiry dispassionately. In the circumstances of -the case, the inquiry could have been entrusted to some other officer holding superior rank than the petitioner. However, the action of the authorities of the Bank in appointing Sri U.S. Awasthi cannot be said to be illegal or improper as the petitioner has not made any allegation against Sri Awasthi in the writ petition. In the absence of allegations regarding bias etc. it can be held that the appointment of Sri Awasthi, Inquiry Officer was not legal and proper.
35. In view of these facts and considering the reply submitted by the Bank in its counter affidavit, I am of the opinion that the relevant documents sought for by the petitioner for defending himself were not supplied by the Inquiry Officer. In the departmental proceedings, all the relevant documents upon which the accusations, imputations of charge were based should be supplied to the delinquent to enable him to defend himself. This would have helped the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses and to produce his own defence. This act of non-supply of documents to the petitioner and not allowing opportunity to inspect the same is violative of principles of natural justice and fair trial. The petitioner's case is fully supported by the judgments cited by him as State of U.P. v. Satrughna Lal and Ors., 1998 (2) LCD 1273 (SC); and Basant Lal v. U.P.S.R.T.C and Ors., 1999 (2) LCD 963,
36. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the petitioner was not permitted to authorise Sri D.K.. Jain, an Officer of Punjab National Bank, Karanpur Branch, District Dehradun as his defence assistant. His request was turn down by the Inquiry Officer on 17.5.2001 on the only ground that Sri Jain was running under suspension and was an officer of another State as such he could not be appointed as his defence assistant. The petitioner made a request to disciplinary authority also for taking assistance of Sri D.K. Jain but the disciplinary authority also rejected the application submitted by the petitioner for appointment of Sri D.K. Jain as his defence assistant.
37. Sri S.P. Singh has placed reliance on Regulation 6(7) in support of his submissions that an officer, employee of the Bank may take assistance of any other officer or employee but he cannot engage a legal practitioner. In the note of the said regulation, it has been provided that the officer, employee shall not take the assistance of any other officer, employee who has two pending disciplinary cases at hand in which he has to give assistance. Sri D.K. Jain even when he was under suspension was an officer and employee of the Punjab National Bank. An employee under suspension remains in service. The employee-employer relations continued during the suspension. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Ors., 1999 (2) ESC 1009 (paras 26, 27 and 28). The suspension does not put and end to an employee's service. The petitioner has demonstrated before the Inquiry Officer and the punishing officer that he needed effective assistance of an experienced officer of this choice as per Regulation 6 (7) of the relevant Regulation of 1977. According to petitioner, Sri D.K. Jain's assistance was required as the matter was complicated one and the employee may be permitted to take assistance of any other officer or employee of the Bank. Punjab National Bank is a nationalised Bank having its brandies all over India. Sri D.K. Jain was an employee of the Bank and in view of these facts, the application of the petitioner, seeking assistance of Sri D.K. Jain as defence assistant ought to have been allowed by the Inquiry Officer and the punishing authority. There could have been no legal infirmity in such appointments. An employee facing such serious charges did require assistance of an experienced officer who could have presented his case before the Inquiry Officer properly. The petitioner had to face, the inquiry on 29.5.2001 without any defence assistant. Since the Inquiry Officer has been fixing the dates in quick succession, in the month of May and June, 2001, the petitioner had to accept the appointment of Sri Roopesh Gupta who, according to the petitioner had no experience of participating in any disciplinary inquiry. Thus the learned Counsel for the petitioner has rightly submitted that the petitioner was denied proper and effective opportunity of letting him meet his case effectively during departmental trial. The Inquiry Officer and the punishing authority were not justified in refusing the petitioner to seek assistance of Sri D.K. Jain. Thus it is held that reasonable opportunity of defence was denied to the petitioner on this score.
38. The record further reveals that the Inquiry Officer had examined four more witnesses i.e. Shailendra Tripathi, an outsider, Ravi Chandra Bajpai, B.L. Sharma and Anil Kumar Agarwal whose names did not find place in the charge-sheet. The petitioner was not prepared to meet these four additional witnesses who were inducted during trial by the authorities of the Bank. Their testimony was not indicated in the charge-sheet and were presented during departmental inquiry in a sudden move. Sri Roopesh Gupta, defence assistant sought copies of the statements of the witnesses and required some more time to enable him to seek instructions from the petitioner and prepare himself for cross-examination. This opportunity was not allowed to the petitioner's defence assistant. It is an admitted case that Sri J.G. Puri, the petitioner was not personally attending the inquiry (may be due to threat to his life as alleged by him), the Inquiry Officer ought to have allowed sufficient time to the petitioner for preparing himself to meet these four outsider additional witnesses. He should have been allowed opportunity to instruct his defence assistant to enable him to cross-examine these four witnesses who were deposed against the petitioner in a sudden and surprising move by the Inquiry Officer.
39. I agree with the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that reasonable opportunity for cross-examining the non-listed witnesses who were not cited as witnesses in the charge-sheet, was not afforded to the petitioner. I have perused the proceedings of 2.6.2001 which have been placed by the petitioner on record. No specific time was allowed to the petitioner's defence assistant to get briefed instructed by the delinquent employee to cross-examine these witnesses who were produced as strangers and whose names were not disclosed in the charge-sheet. Departmental inquiry is vitiated on these grounds as the statements of these four additional witnesses were used for providing the charges.
40. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has further brought to the notice of the Court that one Sri Rajendra Tiwari who was Presenting Officer of the Bank examined as witness against the petitioner. As a Presenting Officer, he was present throughout deposition of other witnesses and at a later stage took a turn around and then produced himself as witness of the Bank in the last to fill up the lacuna. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has rightly submitted that if a Presenting Officer of the employer Bank had been put as a witness also then he should have been examined in the beginning of recording of evidence. There is substance in the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that Sri Rajendra Tiwari was first allowed to cross-examine other witnesses and then he became a witness for the prosecution i.e. Bank. In the present case, he was a successor, an officer of the same rank posted after suspension of the petitioner. It has rightly been averred by the petitioner in para 23 of the writ petition that Sri Rajendra Tiwari was naturally interested in fructification of his efforts as the Presenting Officer of the employer Bank i.e. in the indictment of the employee i.e. petitioner. Thus lie could not have functioned dispassionately as a fair and unbiased Presenting Officer. The Bank has failed to meet this plea in para 18 of the counter-affidavit. Evasive reply has been given to meet this specific averments, allegations made in the writ petition.
41. It has been further brought to the notice of the Court, that three witnesses i.e. Sri D.K. Mishra, Shailendra Tripathi, P.K. Sadana were sought to be examined by the petitioner in his defence. The petitioner discloses the relevancy of the above witnesses but the Inquiry Officer had declined to permit any of these witnesses to be examined in defence of the petitioner on 13.6.2001, the date of inquiry. Vague and evasive reply has been given in para 19 of the counter-affidavit to meet specific arguments made in this regard in paras 25 to 27 to the writ petition.
42. In the circumstances of the case when the relevancy of the witnesses was disclosed by the petitioner, these witnesses ought to have been examined by the Inquiry Officer. Sri Shailendra Tripathi who gave a letter to the Inquiry Officer saying that he has been compelled to depose against the petitioner by the Presenting Officer, Mr. Rajendra Tiwari, was not permitted to re-examine by the petitioner, Sri Shailendra Tripathi had given in writing on 3.6.2001 that he had nothing to depose against the petitioner. In view of this fact, the Inquiry Officer ought to have been examined this witness, Sri Shailendra Tripathi to bring out correct facts in his defence.
43. There was no justification in refusing to change the venue of departmental inquiry. The petitioner had imminent and instant danger to his life. However, holding of inquiry at stock exchange Branch cannot be said to be improper. There would have been no harm in changing the venue of inquiry from the Stock Exchange Branch, Kanpur to some other Branch Office in the city of Kanpur.
44. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has raised another legal infirmity in the departmental trial. Sri B.L. Sharma, Assistant Manager and Ravi Chandra Bajpai, officer of the branch were produced by the management as witnesses against the petitioner during the inquiry. It is noteworthy that these officers were co-delinquents in the preliminary report and have also now been issued charge-sheets on the same grounds. These officers are facing departmental inquiry. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has. rightly submitted that the evidence of a co-accused (co-delinquent) cannot be relied upon a co-accused as this kind of witness cannot be said to be independent and dispassionate evidence. The Bank had produced Sri B.L. Sharma and Ravi Shankar Bajpai as witnesses against the petitioner and later on they were also charge-sheeted. There is weightage in petitioner's submissions. As per para 30 of the writ petition, these witnesses were produced against the petitioner with a temptation from the Bank authorities that if they deposed against, the petitioner, they would be let off. These witnesses were naturally co-delinquents and as per preliminary inquiry report these witnesses themselves must have been interested in throwing the blame on the petitioner in order to save themselves, The petitioner has indicated in para 30 that after their depositions were over and the disciplinary authority relying upon their evidences, punished the petitioner, these witnesses, Sri B.L. Sharma and Ravi Shankar Bajpai were also Issued with identical charge sheets. Thus it can be inferred from these circumstances that reliance placed on their depositions was illegal. It is against the normal and fair practice also.
45. In view of above, it is amply clear that the findings of the Inquiry Officer and the disciplinary authority are based on untrustworthy and interested witnesses and are unjust, improper and invalid. The findings are vague and conjectural which have been recorded with a pre-determined mind, pre-judging the issues to hold the petitioner guilty of charges and to punish him.
46. The findings of the Inquiry Officer are erroneous. These are vitiated in view of above discussion.
47. I have perused the order passed by the appellate authority. It has rightly been said by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the appellate authority has not applied its own mind but has passed the order in stereotype manner. The petitioner's detailed submissions, placed in the appeal were not. dealt with. Some new issues have been raised in the order passed by the appellate authority. It has been rightly indicated in para 30 of the writ petition (not. properly controverted in the counter-affidavit) that neither the charges contained any allegation to the effect that the pledge master's report should have been signed by the General Power of Attorney Holders. This allegation does not find place in the report of Inquiry Officer and the order passed by the disciplinary authority. The appellate authority has made its own observation to justify the order in rejecting the appeal. He has excluded from consideration that the petitioner has put in about 25 years satisfactory services in the Bank, This was not a case in which the petitioner was found guilty for mis-appropriation, of public money, embezzlement or other serious charges. The charge-sheet annexed by the petitioner indicates violation of same administrative guidelines and norms in respect of five accounts, maintained by the Bank. The opportunity of personal hearing should have been allowed to the petitioner to meet these new points, raised by the appellate authority while disposing of the appeal. If the petitioner could have been allowed this opportunity, he could have met these new additional points which did not find place in the charge-sheet and in the order of penalty passed by the disciplinary authority.
48. In view of above discussion, it is held that the principles of natural justice have been violated, The petitioner was not afforded adequate opportunity of hearing during the departmental proceedings held against him.
49. The writ petition is allowed. A writ of certiorari is issued quashing the order dated 9.7.2002 passed by the appellate authority as contained Annexure 1 to the writ petition and the order dated 31.12.2001 passed by the disciplinary authority as contained Annexure 2 to the writ petition. The petitioner shall be reinstated on the post held by him with consequential benefits of salary and other service benefits.
50. However, it is open for the opposite parties to take appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law if they deem fit.