http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: AJAY KUMAR GULATI

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       16/07/1996

BENCH: JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J) BENCH: JEEVAN REDDY, B.P. (J) SEN, S.C. (J)

CITATION:  JT 1996 (6)   477        1996 SCALE  (5)226

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                       J U D G M E N T B.P.JEEVAN REDDY,J.      Leave granted. Heard the counsel for the parties.      This appeal is preferred by the employer, State Bank of Bikaner and  Jaipur against  the judgment  and order  of the Delhi High  Court giving  certain directions with respect to the scope  of disciplinary  enquiry to  be conducted against the respondent-employee.      A disciplinary  enquiry was held against the respondent with respect  to certain  grave charges. The enquiry officer reported  that  the  charges  were  established.  Respondent submitted his  comments and  objections to the report of the enquiry  officer   After  considering  the  report  and  the objections the  disciplinary authority  passed the following order on April 29 4. It is indeed a communication addressed to the respondent:      "With     reference     to     your      representation   dated   the   16th      Decembers  1993,   with  regard  to      proceedings  and  findings  of  the      Enquiry Officer constituted earlier      to go into the charges against your      we have  carefully  gone  into  the      points  raised   by  you   in  your      representation and  having  applied      our   mind   dispassionately   have      observed that  though his  findings      are sufficient for taking a view in      the matter  to expel  every iota of      doubt   and    to   provide   every      opportunity  to  you  to  put  your      defences another opportunity in the      name of justice may be given to you      to make your position clear.      I have,  therefore,, issued  orders      for conducting  the enquiry against

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

    you afresh  and have appointed Shri      S.K.Supekars,    Branch    Manager,      D.N.Market  Ahmedabad   as  Enquiry      Officer to  conduct  the  necessary      departmental  enquiry.  The  notice      dated 29.4.1994  issued  by  me  in      this respect is enclosed.      The date,  time and  place  of  the      enquiry will  be advised  to you by      the  Enquiry   Officer.   You   are      advised to  remain available to him      as and  when required.  Please also      finalise  the   selection  of  your      representative for  defending  your      case, before  the  commencement  of      the proceedings in case you wish to      engage one.      Please acknowledge receipt.      Yours faithfully,      sd/      C.K. MISHRA      Notified Disciplinary Authority."      On the  same days  the very  same  authority  addressed another communication  to Sri  S.K.Supekars  Branch  Manager State Bank  of Bikaner  and  Jaipur,  D.N.Market,  Ahmedabad intimating that  he has  been appointed  the enquiry officer and asking  him to  commence the enquiry on May 26, 1994 and complete  the   same  within   the  period  prescribed.  The communication reads as follows:      "The abovenamed  was issued  charge      sheet   no.    DGM/DPS/159    dated      24.9.1991  for  committing  certain      Acts of  misconduct while posted as      ALPMO at  Amar  Colony,  New  Delhi      branch.  Following  the  denial  of      charge by  Shri Gulati,  matter was      got enquired  into Enquiry  Officer      has  since  submitted  the  Enquiry      report.   Keeping    in   view   he      representation made  by Shri Gulati      and with  a view  to give  him full      opportunity to put up his defences,      it has  been decided  by me  to get      the   matter enquired  afresh   and      have  appointed   you  as   Enquiry      Officer.  I  forward  herewith  the      copies   of the following documents      for  your   perusal  and  necessary      action.      1. Noted dated 29.4.94 issued by me      appointing you as Enquiry Officer.      2. Copy  of Order  dated 29.4.1994,      appointing  Shri   G.S  Talwar   as      Bank’s Representative.      3.  Copy   of  Charge   Sheet   no.      DGM/DPS/159 dated 24/09/1991 issued      to Shri A.K.Gulati.      4. Time schedule of the enquiry.      5.  Copy  of  letter  no.  DGM/DPS/      dated 29.4.1994  addressed to  Shri      A.K.Gulati.      You are  advised  to  commence  the      enquiry on  26.5.1994 as  mentioned      in the schedule of enquiry. You are      further  advised  to  complete  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

    enquiry within  the given  schedule      by holding  the same  on day to day      basis without  break.  Please  note      that  your  report  must  reach  me      positively  within  the  stipulated      period as  detailed in the enclosed      time schedule.      Yours faithfully,      sd/-      (C.K. Mishra)      Notified Disciplinary Authority"      The respondent  questioned  the  aforesaid  proceeding, order dated  April 29,  1994 by way of a writ petition [C.W. No.405 of  1995] in  the Delhi  High Court.  Though  several grounds were  raised in  the writ petitions the any question urged before  the High  Courts as it appears, from the order of the High Court was, from which stage of proceeding should the de  novo enquiry  commence. It  would be  appropriate to extract the order of the High Court in its entirety:      "This writ petition can be disposed      of at  this stage  as now  the only      question addressed  before us is as      to   from   what   state   of   the      proceedings,.the  de  novo  enquiry      should  commence.   A  new  enquiry      officer  has  been  appointed  vide      impugned order  and impugned  order      has ordered  de novo enquiry which,      according  to  our  views  was  not      Justified.  The  reason  given  for      holding  fresh   enquiry  is   that      petitioner’s grievance  that he had      not been  given proper  opportunity      for defending  his case  by leading      documentary and  oral evidence  has      been accepted by the Department and      for      affording       reasonable      opportunity  of   hearing  to   the      petitioner  for   giving  his  full      defences de  novo enquiry  has been      ordered.           We are  of the  view that  the      enquiry would  not be from the very      beginning.     The     Department’s      evidence has already been completed      and some evidence of the petitioner      has also  been  recorded.  The  New      Enquiry Officer  should now proceed      to   give    opportunity   to   the      petitioner to  is  documentary  and      oral evidence and also consider the      question of  recalling any  witness      for further  cross-examination      petitioner  and   then  proceed  to      decide the matter afresh.           The petitioner  be  given  his      dues according, to the rules.           With the  directions this writ      petition is  disposed  of.  Parties      are left  bear their own costs. The      application is also disposed of."      In this  appeals it  is contended by the appellant Bank that there  is no  warrant for the High Court to direct that the enquiry  to be  conducted hereinafter should be confined to the  recording of  the evidence  to  be  adduced  by  the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

respondent alone.  The learned  counsel  for  the  appellant contends that  no  reasons  are  given  in  support  of  the direction made by the High Court.      We are  not prepared to agree. The High Court was given reasons for  the direction  it has given, in supersession of the orders  of the  notified disciplinary  authority. We are unable to say that the view taken by the High Court is not a possible view.  Acting under Article 136, we do not think it advisable to  interfere with  the order  of the  High Court, even if we find that another view of the matter is possible.      The appeal is dismissed accordingly. No costs.