LexHEERA PRASAD versus STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A HEERA PRASAD v. STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS . MARCH 2, 1993 B (J.S. VERMA AND S.P. BHARUCHA, JJ.) Constinition of India, 1950: Anicle 136-Appeal-Senice-Disciplinary --1. proceeding-Bank employee-Dismissal from sen•ice on the basis of enquiry repon Challenged before High Corm--f(igh Co11rt's order dated 8.7.1988 con- C templating fres/1 enquiry-"Additional enquiry report" made by Enquiry Of- fice,.....ivhether there was application of mind-Supreme Co11rt's direction to appoini another Enquiry Officer prescribing his d11ties. The respondent-bank charge-sheeted the appellant-employee for. granting bank loans to a large number of persons without proper -~ D documentation and without verifying their credit-worthi~ess and obtaining E F G illegal gratification in that connection. An enquiry was held. The Enquiry Officer found the appellant .guilty and on the basis of the enquiry ~port, he was dismissed from service. The appellant challenged the order or dismissal in a writ petition before the High Court. Ou 8.7.1988 the High Court allowed the petition holding that the enquiry held was not proper and in accordance with law and ordered the appellant to face another enquiry in respect of which it gave certain directions. ' The ·same enquiry Office~ then permitted the appellant to cross-ex- amine the witnesses of the bank and to examine his own "itnesses; _/"" The Enquiry Officer htld in his report dated 27.3.1989 that nine charges against the appellant were found to be proved, one not proved and one partly proved. The disciplinary authority, considering the enquiry report, dis- • ..,J.. H missed the appellant from service on 23.10.1989. 160 _ _, .. HEEl}A PRASAD v. STA TE BANK 161 The appellant challenged the dismissal order in the High Court A contending that the enquiry was not conducted as required by the order of the High Court dated 8.7 .1988 and that he was not furnished with a copy of the Enquiry Report. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, against which the present appeal by special leave was filed. B The appellant contended that the Enquiry Officer in the second enquiry report had relied upon the findings of the earlier enquiry, since quashed, and that he did not permit the appellant to examine three necessary witnesses In support of his case; that there was no real enquiry C as contemplated by the High Court's order dated 8.7.1988; and that, therefore, the dismissal order passed on the bassis of the second enquiry 'r - report be quashed. The respondent-bank submitted that the Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry as directed by the High Court in its order dated 8.7.1988. D Allowing the appeal, this Court, HELD : 1.01. The order dated 8th July, 1988 contemplated a fresh enquiry. At best, the examination-in-chief of the witnesses of the respon- dent could be said to have been allowed to be incorporated in the second enquiry proceedings. The order certainly contemplated that the Enquiry Officer would apply his mind afresh to the evi_dence on record, comprising the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of the respondent's wit- nesses and that of the appellant's witnesses. [165C] 1.02:, It was patent from the "Additional enquiry report' made by the Enquiry Officer that there had been no fresh application of mind. It was impermissible for the Enquiry Officer, in these circumstances, to have borne bis previous Enquiry Report in mind and to have confined the "Additional enquiry report" only to the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses and the examination and cross~xamination of defence witnesses "as the charges have been dealt with one by one in detail in my previous enquiry report". It was also impermissible for him to have stated that "the findings of the previous enquiry report remain as they are". Having regard E F G to the High Court's order dated 8th July, 1988, the Enquiry Officer was bound to consider the material on record afresh and not to take .his earlier H 162 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1993) 2 S.C.R. A ttport into account and to say that be round "no reason to change that report" •. [165C-E] +- 1.03. In the fitness of things it was directed that another Enquiry Officer should be appointed by the ttspondent who should allow the appellant the opportunity of examining as his witnesses the three persons · B n:Cerred to by the earlier Enquiry <ilfficer in the paragraph of the "Addi- tional enquiry report' sub-titl
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.