- (1.) INSTANT intra court appeal has been filed by the delinquent appellant assailing order of learned Single Judge dt. 04.09.2013. As it reveals from the record that the appellant while posted as JMGS -I was suspended and the charge -sheet dt. 23.05.2012 was served under the orders of disciplinary authority regarding the alleged fraud/irregularities which he committed in discharge of his official duties. After the enquiry was initiated the enquiry officer proceeded with departmental enquiry as per the State Bank of India Officers Service Rules, 1992. However, during pendency of the enquiry when the delinquent appellant did not participate and abstained from disciplinary enquiry and send emails for seeking adjournment of the proceedings due to his alleged illness as prayed and when the adjournment being the regular phenomena on one pretext or the other the enquiry officer did not consider it appropriate to adjourn the proceedings and initiated ex parte proceedings against the delinquent appellant and it was recorded by him in the proceedings that ample opportunity was afforded to the delinquent to participate but when he failed to participate there was no option left except to proceed in the departmental enquiry, at this stage the appellant -petitioner approached to this Court by filing writ petition and after hearing the parties the learned Single Judge as appears from the order impugned had not gone into merits of the matter, however, considered it appropriate that enquiry must be proceeded from the date ex -parte proceedings were initiated obviously taking judicial notice of the fact that the ex parte enquiry may adversely affect the rights of the delinquent and accordingly directed that enquiry may proceed further from the date exparte proceedings were initiated and at the same time further observe to conclude the same within shortest possible time and as agreed by the parties directed the appellant -petitioner to appear before the enquiry officer on 17.09.2013.
(2.) IT is not in dispute that the parties appeared before the enquiry officer on the date which was fixed by the learned Single Judge of 17.09.2013 and the enquiry officer has proceeded with the departmental enquiry obviously under the scheme of Rules and the delinquent is at liberty and have an opportunity to say in rebuttal. However, this Court is not recording any finding as regards the enquiry which is being conducted under the scheme of Rules and which is not the subject matter to be examined by this Court at this stage, more so when the enquiry officer is seized of the departmental enquiry and its final outcome can certainly give right to the delinquent to take further action which the law permits to him obviously under the scheme of Rules.
(3.) THE main thrust of submission of counsel for appellant is that although he had appeared before the enquiry officer on 17.09.2013 but demanded certain documents which are relevant and have a bearing to the question which is to be examined by the enquiry officer but that has not been supplied to him, in absence whereof, he is unable to cross -examine and put his defence in the course of enquiry. When the application was submitted by the delinquent appellant before the enquiry officer it is always open for the enquiry officer to examine and take appropriate action but if the documents as alleged has not been supplied to him law will take its own course but what will be its effect cannot be presupposed by this Court at this stage and in our considered view this Court should remain reluctant to express its opinion since that may adversely affect rights of the parties pending enquiry at this premature stage and since the learned Single Judge has already taken judicial notice of the fact that enquiry may be proceeded from the date exparte proceedings were initiated against the delinquent in our considered view rights of the delinquent have been protected by the learned Single Judge under order impugned and there appears no apparent error in the order impugned which may require interference. We may further make it clear that the disciplinary authority or the enquiry officer may not be influenced or inhibited by the observations made by us in the present order, however, will be at liberty to proceed with the disciplinary enquiry in accordance with law. We do not find substance in the instant appeal and accordingly dismissed.;