PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI,J. - (1.) The petitioner has preferred this writ petition making the following prayers:- (i) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof and thereby quash and set aside the impugned order dated 14-02-1994 (Annexure-4); (ii) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature thereof thereby direct the Respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits; (iii) issue any other order or direction which the Hon'ble Court deems just and proper may also be passed in favour of the humble petitioner and cost be also awarded."
(2.) The facts noted in this writ petition by this court are that the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Inspector in Cooperative Department on 18.01.1965 and was thereafter promoted as Inspector Executive in 1979. The petitioner was then sent on deputation in the year 1983 to the Cooperative Bank as Assistant Executive Officer (Marketing). The petitioner was served upon a charge-sheet under Rule 16 of C.C.A. Rules, 1958. The Enquiry Officer submitted the enquiry report on 29.07.1993 holding the petitioner guilty for the charges. The disciplinary Authority thus, dismissed the petitioner vide order dated 14.2.1994.
(3.) The respondents filed a reply and denied any document being sought during the enquiry. As per the respondents, the documents were sought only after the enquiry report was sent and thus, such averment by the petitioner was merely after thought. As per the respondents, the enquiry was conducted against the petitioner after giving him due opportunity but since he did not submit any reply, the enquiry proceeded accordingly against the petitioner. The respondents stated that 33 dates were given at the time of enquiry proceedings and thus, the petitioner had ample opportunities to defend himself. The counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondents had initiated another proceedings under Section 74(2) of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 and thereby imposed penalty to recover the amount lost and such penalty was already implemented vide judgment dated 12.09.1988, 10.10.1990 and 28.05.1987. It was also argued by the counsel for the petitioner that the same charges became the foundation of proceedings under Rule 16 of the C.C.A. Rules, 1958 and the same authority which had passed the order under the Section 74 was in fact appointed the Enquiry Officer. The counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment of Arujun Chaubey v. Union of India and Ors. [reported in AIR 1984 SC 1356]. The relevant portion is as follows:- "Therefore, it was not open to the latter to sit in judgment over the explanation offered by the appellant and decide that the explanation was untrue. No person can be a judge in his own case and no witness can certify that his own testimony is true. Any one who has a personal stake in an inquiry must keep himself aloof from the conduct of the inquiry. The order of dismissal passed against the appellant stands vitiated for the simple reason that the issue as to who, between the appellant and respondent 3, was speaking the truth was decided by respondent 3 himself. In State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohammad Nooh, 1958 SCR 595 at p. 609: (AIR 1958 SC 86 at p. 94), S.R. Das, C.J., observed, while speaking for the majority, that the roles of a judge and a witness cannot be played by one and the same person and that it is futile to expect, when those roles are combined, that the judge can hold the scales of justice even. We may borrow the language of Das, C.J., and record a finding on the facts of the case before us that the illegality touching the proceedings which ended in the dismissal of the appellant is "so patent and loudly obtrusive that it leaves an indelible stamp of infirmity" on the decision of respondent 3.";