STATE BANK OF BIKANER AND JAIPUR versus AJAY KUMAR GULATI

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 642 · Decided: 16-07-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.P. JEEVAN REDDY · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
STATE BANK OF BIKANER AND JAIPUR 
v. 
AJAY KUMAR GULATI 
JULY 16, 1996 
B 
[B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND SUHAS C. SEN, JJ.] 
Se1vice Law: 
Disciplinary inquiiy-To be held afresh-Stage from which to be con-
C ducted de novcr-Explained. 
Constitution of India, 1950 : 
A1ticle 136-Scope of-Held, it is not advisable to interfere with the 
order of the High Cowt even if a view other than that taken by the High Court 
D is also possible. 
The respondent was subjected to disciplinary inquiry. The inquiry 
ollicer found the charges to have been established and gave his report 
accordingly. The respondent submitted his objections to the said report. 
The disciplinary authority, in order to give further opportunity to the 
E respondent. to put his defence, ordered the inquiry to be conducted afresh 
and appointed another inquiry ollicer. The respondent challenged the 
order of the disciplinary authority in a writ petition before the High Court, 
which disposed of the matter giving certain di.rections. Aggrieved, the 
employer-Bank filed the present appeal. 
F 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1. The High Court was right in holding that the enquiry 
should not be from the very beginning; the Department's evidence was 
already completed and some evidence of the employee was also recorded; 
the new enquiry ollicer should proceed to give opportunity to the employee 
G to produce his documentary and oral evidence and also consider the 
question of recalling any witness for further cross-examination by the 
employee and then proceed to decide the matter afresh. The High Court 
has given reasons for the direction it has given, in suppression of the 
orders of the notified disciplinary authority. It cannot be said that the view 
H taken by the High Court is not a possible view. It is not advisable under 
642 
STATEBANKOFBIKANERANDJAIPURv. A.KGULATI[JEEVANREDDY,J.) 
643 
Article 136 of the Constitution to interfere with the order of the High A 
Court, even if another view of the matter is possible. (646-A-l'l 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 9226 of 
1996. 
Frum the Judgment and Order dated. 6.9.95 of the Delhi High Court B 
in C.W.P. No. 405 of 1995. 
A.K. Sikri and Ms. Madhu Sikri for the Appellant. 
Manoj Goel and Ms. Abba R. Sharma for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B.P. JEEV AN REDDY, J. Leave granted. Heard the counsel for the 
parties. 
c 
This appeal is preferred by th employer, State Bank of Bikaner and D 
Jaipur against the judgment and order of the Delhi High Court giving 
certain directions \vith respect to the scope of disciplinary enquiry to be 
conducted against the respondent- employee. 
A disciplinary enquiry was held against the respondent with respect E 
to certain grave charges. The enquiry officer reported that the charges 
were established. Respondent submitted his comments and objections to 
the report of the enquiry officer. After considering the report and the 
objections, the disciplinary authority passed the following order on April 
29, 1994. It is indeed a communication addressed to the respondent: 
F 
"With reference to your representation dated the 16th December, 
1993, \vith regard to proceedings and findings of the Enquiry 
Officer constituted earlier to go into the charges against you, we 
have carefully gone into the points raised by you in your repre-
sentation and having applied our mind dispa.,sionately have ob-
G 
served that though his findings are sufficient for taking a view in 
the matter, to expel every iota of doubt and to provide every 
opportunity to you to put your defence, another opportunity in the 
name of justice may be given to you to make your position clear. 
I have, therefore, issued orders for conducting the cnquiJy against 
H 
644 
A 
B 
c 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
you afresh and have appointed Shri S.K. Supckar, Branch Manager, 
D.N. Market, Ahmedabad as Enquiry Officer to conduct the neces-
sary departmental enquiry. The notice dated 29.4.1994 issued by 
me in this respect is enclosed. 
The date, time and place of the enquiry will be advised to you by 
the Enquiry Officer. Your are advised to remain available to him 
as and when required. Please also finalise the selection of your 
representative for defending your case, before the commencement 
of the proceedings in case you wish to engage one. 
Please ocknowledge receipt. 
Yours faithfully, 
sd/-
C.K. MISHRA 
D 
Notified Disciplinary Authority." 
On the s

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.