- (1.) THIS intra-court appeal by the employer-Bank is directed against the order dated 31.03.2009 whereby the learned Single Judge of this Court has allowed the writ petition (CWP No. 1702/1995) filed by the respondent-employee after disapproving the inquiry proceedings against him; and, while quashing the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority, has declared the respondent-employee entitled to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits.
(2.) PUT in brief, the relevant facts and background aspects leading to this appeal could be noticed as follows: The respondent- employee, while serving on the post of Lower Division Clerk, was served with a memorandum dated 05.10.1991 on several imputations of misconduct viz., that he had contravened Regulation 17 of the Marwar Gramin Bank (Staff) Service Regulations, 1980 ('the Regulations of 1980') when he intentionally failed to observe, comply with and obey the orders and directions given to him from time to time; that he violated Regulation 22(1) of the Regulations of 1980 by remaining absent from duty from 11.12.1989 to 24.10.1990 without having sanction from the competent authority; that he violated Regulation 22(2) of the Regulations of 1980 as he remained absent from duty without having any reason beyond his control; that he violated Regulation 52(1) of the Regulations of 1980 by claiming extraordinary leave for more than 12 months in his service career though not permissible; and that he submitted false information/facts to the employer-Bank. In response to the memorandum so served, the respondent employee submitted a reply, inter alia, with the submissions that he was seriously ill between 11.12.1989 to 24.10.1990 and the absence was beyond his control; and that he did not intend to contravene the service regulations. The Disciplinary Authority found it necessary to inquire into the charges levelled against the respondent and, thus, on 13.03.1992, appointed an Inquiry Officer for the purpose. The petitioner was allowed the services of a Defence Assistant. The inquiry commenced on 30.04.1992 and was concluded on 20.10.1993. During the course of inquiry, the respondent-employee submitted the documents in support of his defence and also submitted a list of seven persons to be called as defence witnesses. Out of these seven persons, the Inquiry Officer recorded the statements of only two witnesses, Kalyan Singh and Ganpat Singh; and ruled that summoning of the remaining five witnesses was not relevant in view of the fact that the presenting officer of the bank would answer all the questions on behalf of those witnesses, who were the high ranking officers of the bank. Thus, the Inquiry Officer, without summoning the said five named defence witnesses, proceeded with the matter and then, submitted his report on 03.01.1994 to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority considered the inquiry report and issued a show cause notice to the respondent employee. Thereafter, the Disciplinary Authority heard the parties and passed the questioned order dated 17.10.1994, holding the charges against the respondent-employee proved and imposing the penalty of removal from service. The respondent- employee challenged the order so passed by the Disciplinary Authority before the Appellate Authority who dismissed the appeal by the questioned order dated 26.12.1994 while upholding the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. Aggrieved by the orders aforesaid, the respondent employee preferred the writ petition before this Court wherefrom has arisen this intra-court appeal. During the course of consideration of the writ petition, the learned Single Judge called for the original record of inquiry proceedings and examined the same. In the impugned order dated 31.03.2009, the learned Single Judge held that the Inquiry Officer failed to adhere to the principles of natural justice when he did not allow the employee to examine the said five witnesses only on the consideration that the presenting officer was ready to answer the questions of the delinquent employee. This is what the learned Single Judge said: "In the instant case the reason given for not calling the witnesses named by the delinquent employee is absolutely vague and irrelevant. It does not and cannot appeal to the measures and standards of a quasi judicial inquiry that ultimately resulted into removal of the delinquent employee from service. The refusal to call defence witnesses in the manner existing in present case is apparent denial of reasonable opportunity to the charged employee for defending himself. A definite prejudice, therefore, is caused by not calling the witnesses named by the petitioner without examining their relevance and ultimately holding him guilty for the charges in defence of which he indicated his desire to examine those witnesses."
(3.) THE learned Single Judge also found that the report as made by the Inquiry Officer was not a speaking and reasoned one while observing,- "In the instant matter the inquiry officer simply mentioned that the defence witnesses Kalyan Singh and Ganpat Singh are not trustworthy. No reason is given by the inquiry officer to disbelieve those persons. Pertinent to note here that Ganpat Singh as well as Kalyan Singh extensively narrated facts about serious ailment of the petitioner. THE inquiry officer while disbelieving those persons should have given definite reasons to justify his conclusion. Merely saying that the persons are not found trustworthy, is not at all sufficient. THE basic principle is that every person coming forward as a witness in evidence states truth except proved otherwise, therefore, onus was upon the inquiry officer to establish by adequate discussion relating to conduct and character of Kalyan Singh and Ganpat Singh to disbelieve them or to say that they were not trustworthy." In view of the discussion aforesaid, the learned Single Judge found that the inquiry proceedings had been in violation of the principles of natural justice and proceeded to allow the writ petition. However, while allowing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge not only quashed the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority but also ordered that the respondent- employee was entitled to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. The learned Single Judge held and directed as under:- "For the reasons whatever stated above, I found that the inquiry conducted against the petitioner was in violation of principles of natural justice and that caused a serious prejudice to the petitioner. The report of the inquiry officer is absolutely a non- speaking and unreasoned one and the disciplinary authority did not apply its mind while imposing serious penalty of removal from service upon the petitioner while holding him guilty for the charges alleged. In result, this petition for writ succeeds and, therefore, the same is allowed. The order passed by the disciplinary authority dated 17.10.1994 and the order passed by the appellate authority dated 26.12.1994 are declared illegal and, therefore, the same are hereby quashed. The petitioner is declared entitled to be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits." Seeking to assail the order so passed in the writ petition, it is, inter alia, submitted by the appellant-bank that the learned Single Judge has not examined the entire record and has not considered the fact that a definite case of prejudice was not made out so as to call for interference in the writ jurisdiction. It is also submitted that in any case, the entire proceedings in the inquiry could not have been set aside on the consideration that some of the witnesses were not examined or that the inquiry report had not been elaborately speaking. On the other hand, the order passed by the learned Single Judge has been duly supported on behalf of the respondent- employee. ;