TMI Blog1995 (9) TMI 380X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ner and Jaipur Officers' Service Regulations 1979 (`Regulations' for short), which governed the departmental enquiry had been violated in as much no definite and distinct charges had been framed against the plaintiff (Grover) and he had been punished on the basis of a show cause notice only. Even statement of allegations had not been furnished to him; ii) a copy of the enquiry report was also not made available to Grover before the order of removal was passed; iii) the Disciplinary Authority had not applied its mind, before passing the order of punishment and it merely agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and iv) the Appellate Authority had also dismissed the Departmental Appeal without giving any reason. The appeal preferred by the Bank against the judgment and decree of the trial Court was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Jaipur and the above findings were affirmed. The Appellate Court, however, granted liberty to the Bank to institute a fresh departmental enquiry with the stipulation that the liberty must be exercised within two months. The Bank then filed a second appeal in the High Court which was dismissed in limine. Grover also pref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he order of punishment bad, for along with the charge sheet a copy of the complaint received from Maniram, and lists of witnesses and statements and documents by which charges were proposed to be sustained were furnished to Grover. Besides, Mr. Ahmad submitted, at no stage of the departmental proceedings Grover asked for the statement of allegations nor did he raise any grievance on that score before the Appellate Authority which necessarily meant that he was not in any way prejudiced in his defence thereby. Regarding the other two findings of the trial Court Mr. Ahmad's submission was that the orders themselves would show that they were well reasoned and speaking. This apart, Mr. Ahmad contended that when the disciplinary authority agreed with the finding of the Enquiry Officer it was not necessary to discuss the evidence and give reasons for the findings. In support of this contention he relied upon the judgments of this Court in Ram Kumar vs. State of Haryana AIR 1987 SC 2043, S.N. Mukherjee vs. Union of India (1990) 4 SCC 594 and Som Datt vs. Union of India (1969) 2 SCR 177. In responding to the above contentions of Mr. Ahmad, Mr. Dutta appearing for Grover fairly conced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the Bank and apparently failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty quite apart from abusing your official position. The explanations you have so far offered to the Central Bureau of Investigation in respect of the aforesaid misconduct are found unsatisfactory and, therefore, unacceptable to us. 3. List of witnesses by whom and list of documents by which the charges as proposed to be sustained are enclosed along with copies of the relevant statements and documents. 4. Please note that if you do not comply with the rules or the directions issued to you or do not co-operate with the disciplinary authority or bring external or political pressure on any superior authority to further your interests in the proceedings, you will render yourself liable for further disciplinary action. 5. In terms of paragraph 2 of our Private Confidential Circular No. SBBJ/16/65 dated 23.6.1965, please show cause in writing within 7 days of receipt of this letter why disciplinary action be not taken against you stating clearly whether the charge is admitted by you or denied. Yours faithfully, Sd/- Managing Director. From a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... im to enable him to effectively reply thereto. In other words, the provisions of the Regulation have been substantially complied with, though not formally. This conclusion of ours is strengthened by Grover's reply to the chargesheet which clearly indicates that he fully understood the charge levelled against him. It reads as under: The Managing Director, State Bank of Bikaner Jaipur, Head Office, Jaipur. Dear Sir, (THROUGH PROPER CHANNEL) DISCIPLINARY ACTION: With reference to your letter no. VI/36/C/1050 of the 3rd instant, the allegations made in the charge sheet is false and is denied. Had there been any truth or substance in the allegation, the CBI, the highest investigating agency in the country by whom the matter had been investigated, would have registered a suitable case against me. There is, therefore, no justification in conducting departmental enquiry against me. I request you to kindly drop the disciplinary action against me to meet the ends of natural justice. Yours faithfully, Sd/- 14.4.1980 (P.D. GROVER) Officer, Grade II While on this point, it need also be stated that at no point of time during the departmental proceeding or before the Appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot told clearly and definitely what the allegations were on which the charges preferred against him were founded, he could not possibly by projecting his own imagination, discover all the facts and circumstances that might be in the contemplation of the authorities to be established against him. This Court further observed that the whole object of furnishing the statement of allegations was to give all the necessary particulars and details which would satisfy the requirement of giving a reasonable opportunity to put up defence. The Court then illustrated the utter vagueness of the charges levelled against the appellant therein by referring to one of them and the reply of the appellant thereto. On such consideration the Court held that each charge was so bare that it was not capable of being intelligently understood and was not sufficiently definite to furnish materials to the appellant to defend himself. In the context of the above facts the Court then observed that the whole object of furnishing the statement of allegations under Fundamental Rule 55 was to give all the necessary particulars and details which would satisfy the requirement of giving a reasonable opportunity to put u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gently understood and was not sufficiently definite to furnish materials to the appellant to defend himself. In the context of the above facts the Court then observed that the whole object of furnishing the statement of allegations under Fundamental Rule 55 was to give all the necessary particulars and details which would satisfy the requirement of giving a reasonable opportunity to put up defence. The Court lastly concluded:- The entire proceedings show a complete disregard of Fundamental Rule 55 in so far as it lays down in almost mandatory terms that the charges must be accompanied by a statement of allegations. We have no manner of doubt that the appellant was denied a proper and reasonable opportunity of defending himself by reason of the charges being altogether vague and indefinite and the statement of allegations containing the material facts and particulars not having been supplied to him. In this situation, for the above reason alone, the trial Judge was fully justified in decreeing the suit. From the above resume it is evident that in setting aside the order of removal this Court was influenced primarily by the facts that the charges were totally vague and indefin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l principle of law which requires an administrative authority to record the reasons for its decision; and (ii) If so, does the said principle apply to an order confirming the findings and sentence of a Court martial and post-confirmation proceedings under the Act? After referring to the earlier decisions of this Court and the relevant law prevalent in other countries, this Court answered the first question-with which we are only concerned in these appeals as under:- For the reasons aforesaid, it must be concluded that except in cases where the requirement has been dispensed with expressly or by necessary implication, an administrative authority exercising judicial or quasi-judicial functions is required to record the reasons for its decision. In view of the answer so given, it has to be now seen whether under the Regulations, the concerned authorities are required to give reasons for their decisions. Regulation 68(3) lays down the procedure the Disciplinary Authority is required to follow after it receives the proceedings of the enquiry including the report of the Enquiry Officer. On careful perusal thereof we find that only in those cases where the Disciplinary Auth ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
