K ASHOKA Vs. VIJAYA BANK PRIMROSE ROAD BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this petition is presently working as Officer in Junior Management Grade Scale-I in the respondent-Bank. For the misconduct stated to have been committed by the petitioner, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. It appears, the Enquiry Officer, after conducting necessary enquiry, has found the petitioner not guilty of the charges levelled against him. The Disciplinary Authority did not accept the Report of the Enquiry Officer and instead decided to reopen the domestic enquiry by his order dated 28-1-1991, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure-F to this petition. In this petition the order at Annexure-F passed by the Disciplinary authority rejecting the enquiry report and directing reopening of the disciplinary proceedings has been called in question.

(2.) SRI Rajagopal, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the order of the Disciplinary authority in not accepting the Report of the Enquiry Officer and directing reopening of the enquiry is totally illegal, inasmuch as, the said order came to be passed without hearing the petitioner and without giving him an opportunity. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner since the Enquiry Officer had found that the charges levelled against the petitioner were not proved, if the Disciplinary Authority wanted to reject the Report of the enquiry Officer and direct conducting of fresh enquiry, it was incumbent on the Disciplinary Authority to have given an opportunity to the petitioner before rejecting the Report of the enquiry Officer and directing reopening of the enquiry. Sri rajagopal, learned Counsel for the petitioner, in support of his submission that the petitioner was entitled for an opportunity before passing the order impugned, relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ram Kishan v Union of India and Others , and a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Karnataka Agro Industries Corporation v Vittaldas2.

(3.) SRI Subba Rao, learned Counsel appearing for respondent-1, submitted that since the Disciplinary Authority was required to take a final decision in the matter on the basis of the enquiry report and since the Disciplinary Authority had only rejected the Report of the Enquiry Officer and remitted the matter for fresh enquiry, it was not obligatory for the disciplinary Authority to give an opportunity to the petitioner. In support of his contention, the learned Counsel placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of A. K. Kraipak and Others v Union of India and Others and in the case of State bank of India, Bhopal v S. S. Koshal.