Court No. - 16
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 27271 of 2018 Petitioner :- Pankajesh Respondent :- General Manager/Disciplinary Authority, Allahabad Up Gramin Bank, Banda And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gopal Verma,Prashant Vardhan Counsel for Respondent :- Satish Kishore Kakkar
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. K. Kakkar, who appears for the respondent No.1-General Manager/ Disciplinary Authority, Allahabad, U.P. Gramin Bank Civil Lines, Head Office Banda.
It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner retired as Officer Scale-2 on 31.10.2018 from the Bank. He had been issued a charge sheet on 18.10.2018 and enclosure-3 to the charge sheet shows that at least 30 documents are mentioned, on which the bank proposes to rely for proving the charges. However, the documentary evidence proposed to be relied upon by the Bank has not been given to the petitioner. He has made a representation in this regard to the Enquiry Officer. He was asked to come to Chakondh Branch on 25.10.2018, but he was not shown documents mentioned at serial No.3 to 16 and 18 to 20 in enclosure-3 to the charge sheet and he wrote a letter of protest to the respondent No.1 regarding non-cooperation on the part of the authorities to enable the petitioner to file a detailed reply to the charge sheet.
Learned counsel for the Bank on the basis of instructions says that the documents that are being prayed for by the petitioner are voluminous and, therefore, copies of the documents cannot be given to the petitioner.
However, from a perusal of letter dated 03.10.2018 as written to the respondent No.1, it is clear that the petitioner is only asking for copies of documentary evidence as is mentioned in enclosure No.3 to the charge sheet where it is mentioned also that copies are being enclosed along with charge sheet. If such documentary evidence is voluminous that would be look out of the respondent No.1 as the respondent No.1 has approved the charge sheet that has been issued to the petitioner in Kashinath Dikshita vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors (1986) 3 SCC 229. The Supreme Court has observed in Para 11 and 12 of the report thus:-
"11. Be that as it may, even without going into minute details it is evident that the appellant was entitled to have an access to the documents and statements throughout the course of the inquiry. He would have needed these documents and statements in order to cross-examine the 38 witnesses who were produced at the inquiry to establish the charges against him. So also at the time of arguments, he would have needed the copies of the documents. So also he would have needed the copies of the documents to enable him to effectively cross-examine the witnesses with reference to the contents of the documents, it is obvious that he could not have done so if copies had not been made available to him. Taking an overall view of the matter we have no doubt in our mind that the appellant has been denied a reasonable opportunity of exonerating himself. We do not consider it necessary to quote extensively from the authorities cited on behalf of the parties, beyond making passing reference to some of the citation, for, whether or not there has been a denial to afford a reasonable opportunity in the backdrop of this cas must substantially depend upon the facts pertaining to this matter.
12. The appellant relied on Tirlok Nath v. Union of India 1967 SLR 759 in support of the proposition that if a public servant facing an inquiry is not supplied copies of documents, it would amount to denial of reasonable opportunity. It has been held in this case:
Had he decided to do so, Ihe documents would have been useful to the appellant for cross-examining the witnesses who deposed against him Again had the copies of the documents been furinshed to the appellant he might, after perusing them, will have exercised his right under the rule and asked for an oral inquiry to be held. Therefore, in our view the failure of the Inquiry Officer to furnish to the appellant with copies of the documents such as the FIR and statements recorded at Shidhipura house and during the investigation must be held to have caused prejudice to the appellant in making his defence at the inquiry.
Reliance has also been placed on State of Punjab v. Bhagat Ram S.C R. 1975 (2) p. 370 and State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohd. Sharif (dead) through LRs LLJ 1982 (2) 180 in support of the proposition that copies of statements of witnesses must be supplied to the Government servant facing a departmental inquiry. It has been emphatically stated in State of Punjab v. Bhagat Ram S.C R. 1975 (2) p. 370 by this Court as under:
The State contended that the respondent was not entitled to get copies of statements. The reasoning of the State was that the respondent was given an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and during the cross-examination the respondent would have the opportunity of confronting the witnesses with the statements. It is contended that the synopsis was adequate to acquaint the respondent with the gist of the evidence.
The meaning of a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken is that the Government servant is afforded a reasonable opportunity to defend himself against the charges on which inquiry is held. The Government servant should be given an opportunity to deny his guilt and establish his innocence. He can do so when he is told what the charges against him are. He can do so by cross-examining the witnesses produced against him. The object of supplying statements is that the Government servant will be able to refer to the previous statements of the witnesses proposed to be examined against the Government servant. Unless the statements are given to the Government servant he will not be able to have an effective and useful cross- examination.
It is unjust and unfair to deny the Government servant copies of witnesses examined during investigation and produced at the inquiry in support of the charges levelled against the Government servant. A synopsis does not satisfy the requirements of giving the Government servant a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken "
The Supreme Court thus made specific observations with regard to the right of delinquent employee to the copies of documents referred to in the charge sheet.
This Court, therefore, directs the respondent No.1 to ensure that the Enquiry Officer gives copies of all documents that have been relied upon from serial No.1 to 30 in a legible format to the petitioner to file his reply. The respondent No.1 shall direct to Enquiry Officer or the competent authority to provide all copies within a period four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him.
The petitioner shall after perusing such documents file his reply within a period of three weeks.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 19.12.2018 cks/-