- (1.) BY issuing a charge-sheet dated February 10, 2006 the first respondent initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner who was working in the co-operative bank as an officer. He had been suspended by an order dated August 10,2005. It was alleged that he had misappropriated funds of the bank. An inquiry officer was appointed. In the course of inquiry the petitioner prayed for permission to engage lawyer. The request was turned down, and feeling aggrieved he took out w. P. No. 23418 (W) of 2006. While that writ petition was awaiting admission hearing, the inquiry officer proceeded with the inquiry. The petitioner was participating in the inquiry. On November 4, 2006 he decided to withdraw himself from the proceedings.
(2.) UNDER the circumstances the inquiry officer made an order that the inquiry fixed for November 11, 2006 would be held ex parte. Such proceedings dated November 4, 2006 were signed, with'others, by the petitioner. Thereupon the inquiry was concluded and the inquiry officer submitted his report recording findings that the charges levelled against the petitioner had been established. With the second show cause notice dated January 10, 2007 the chief executive officer of the bank supplied a copy of the inquiry report to the petitioner, who was given an opportunity to make representation why he should not be dismissed from service. Questioning that second show cause notice he has taken out w. P. No. 1835 (W) of 2007. This being the position, both the writ petitions were directed to be heard together, and I have heard them together. They are being disposed of by this common judgment.
(3.) THE admitted position is that the disciplinary authority did not give the petitioner an opportunity to make representation against the findings of the inquiry officer. I agree with counsel for the petitioner that in view of the apex Court decision in Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar and Ors. , (1993) 4 SCC 727, before proposing punishment and giving the petitioner opportunity to make representation against that, the disciplinary authority was required to supply a copy of the inquiry report to the petitioner and give him an opportunity to make representation against the findings of the inquiry officer. It is only after considering the inquiry report and the petitioner's representation, if any, to the findings recorded therein that the disciplinary authority was to decide whether the report was fit for acceptance.;