- (1.) Two short, but important questions in the field of service law, arise for consideration in this writ application. They are: (I) Whether the disciplinary authority can differ with the findings of the enquiry officer - holding the delinquent not guilty - on all or some of the charges without giving an opportunity to the delinquent officer? and; (ii) If an opportunity is required to be given, is it necessary to supply a copy of the enquiry officer's report to the delinquent officer?
(2.) The facts that gave rise to these questions, in brief, are: The petitioner was appointed as a Clerk-cum-Cashier in the 1st respondent-Bank in the year 1985. During the year 1989 he was working in Azamnagar branch as a Clerk-cum-Cashier. Besides him there was a Branch Manager in that branch. Both of them were joint custodians of cash and safety vault. On 10-7-1989 the Administrative and Audit Officers of the 1st respondent-Bank inspected that branch and found certain irregularities. The petitioner was called upon to explain and he did. Not satisfied with his explanation, the 1st respondent-Bank issued a charge-sheet to the petitioner on 4-1-1990, where under the following three charges were framed : "(a) That, you have not reported to Head Officer, in time, about the absence of the Branch Manager from 8-7-1989 and thereby failed to protect the Banks interest. (b) That, you were found negligent in keeping cash amounting to Rs.11,301.50 ps., from 8-7-1989 to opening of business on 10-7-1989 and Rs.15,546.50 ps., as at the close of business on 10-7-1989 in your personal custody being one of the joint custodian and once again failed to protect the Bank's interest. (c) That, you also paid cash for the under noted debits to charges/suspense account without being passed by the Branch Manager : Charges debit for Rs.113.40 dated 8-7-1989 Suspense debit for Rs.750.00 dated 8/10-7-1989. That the above said acts are in gross violation of Kakathiya Grameena Bank Staff Service Regulation No. 19 read with Section 30(1)".
(3.) The petitioner submitted his explanation thereto on 30-1-1990. The Chairman of the 1st respondent-Bank then appointed an enquiry officer to conduct and enquiry into those charges. Thereafter the enquiry officer conducted oral enquiry on 1-8-1990 and on 29-8-1990. He submitted his report to the Chairman of the 1st respondent-Bank (Disciplinary Authority), holding the petitioner guilty of charges 1 and 3 and partly exonerating him of charge No.2. The relevant portion of the said report is as under : "In view of the foregoing, I am of the opinion that the employee is guilty of alt the charges except the charge that the employee found negligent in keeping cash amounting to Rs.11,301.50 ps. from 8-7-1989 to opening of business on 10-7-1989 as the cash balance was not verified by any one at the opening of business on 10-7-1989". Thereupon, on 7-3-1991 the Disciplinary Authority issued the impugned punishment order imposing the penalty of stoppage of one increment by cancellation.;