ORDER
Shantanu Kemkar, J.
1. By filing this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the order dated 22-2-1993 (Annexure P-l) by which he has been dismissed from service and also the order dated 18-8-1994 (Annexure P-2) by which the appeal preferred by him against the said dismissal order has been rejected.
2. The petitioner was working as Branch Manager in the respondent Bank. He was posted in Amjhor Branch, District Shahdol during the period June, 1984 to May, 1986. The respondent Bank issued three memos dated 24-5-1986 (Annexure P-3), 28-5-1986 (Annexure P-4) and 11-2-1988 (Annexure P-5) to him alleging various irregularities committed by him during his posting at Amjhor. The petitioner replied the aforesaid memos immediately after receipt of the same. On 4-5-1990 the petitioner was issued a charge-sheet (Annexure P-6) alleging the lapses/irregularities which were alleged in the aforesaid memos. Thereafter the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him by the respondents. The enquiry officer after conducting enquiry submitted a report holding that some of the charges were proved, some of the charges were partly proved and some of the charges were not proved. The Disciplinary Authority, while accepting the finding of the enquiry officer to the extent that some charges were proved and some of the charges were not proved, however, did not agree with the report of the enquiry officer as regards the finding that the charge No. 7 was partly proved. The Disciplinary Authority held that the charge No. 7 was fully proved. In that view, on consideration of the material, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of dismissal of the petitioner from service. The petitioner unsuccessfully appealed against the order of dismissal before the Appellate Authority. Thereafter he filed this writ petition challenging the order of dismissal from service and the appellate order.
3. The petitioner contends that on receipt of his reply to the memos issued to him, the respondents did not take any action for considerable long period. In view of this delay he contends that the respondents could not have issued him the charge-sheet on the basis of stale material. He alleges that the respondents proceeded in the enquiry in a hot haste manner denying him a reasonable, effective and adequate opportunity to defend his case and lead evidence. The petitioner further alleges that in spite of repeated directions of the enquiry officer and in spite of seeking time to produce the relevant documents demanded by him the Presenting Officer appearing for the respondents did not produce the same. He contends that the enquiry officer without waiting for the said material and important documents closed the enquiry thereby caused great prejudice to him. He submits that though the matter was adjourned for several occasions for recording the evidence of the respondents but he was not afforded even the breathing time by the enquiry officer to produce his material witnesses. The petitioner also contends that the Disciplinary Authority although agreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer on other points, held that the charge No. 7, reported to be partly proved was rather fully proved, then before recording its own finding on such charge it ought to have recorded its tentative reasons for such disagreement and ought to have given him an opportunity to represent. The petitioner alleges that the Appellate Authority has dismissed the appeal mechanically by a non-speaking order. He contends that the Appellate Authority having failed to appreciate the grounds raised by him in his appeal, the said order of the Appellate Authority is not sustainable.
4. The respondent Bank contends that the charge-sheet issued to the petitioner was not based on the stale material, but, after issuance of memos and on receipt of the petitioner’s reply the matter was further investigated. The respondents contend that after verification on the basis of internal audit, external audit and 100% audit it was found that there is enough material to issue charge-sheet to the petitioner. It is stated that in the process of further investigation and seeking guidance from the higher authorities of the Bank the time was consumed. The respondents further stated that the enquiry officer conducted the enquiry following the provisions of Central Bank of India Officer, Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976, and the principles of natural justice. They stated that the documents demanded by the petitioner had no relevance to the charges, in the circumstances, the enquiry officer did not commit any error in closing the enquiry in the absence of production of these documents. They stated that the petitioner himself sought a day’s time on 14-1-1991 to produce his witnesses, therefore, when he could not produce his witnesses on 15-1-1991 the enquiry officer has rightly closed the enquiry proceedings. In regard to the non- supply of the tentative reasons of disagreement by the Disciplinary Authority they stated that no prejudice was caused to the petitioner in the absence of providing the said tentative note of disagreement. It is further stated that the order of the Appellate Authority being well reasoned order the same needs no interference by this Court.
5. Heard Shri Sujoy Paul, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Arvind K. Pandey, learned Counsel for the respondents. Perused the enquiry proceedings produced at the time of hearing and considered the case law cited by both the parties.
6. So far as the ground raised in the petition about the delay in issuing the charge-sheet, this ground was not seriously pressed by the learned Counsel for the petitioner at the time of the hearing. Even otherwise, I find that the respondents have successfully, explained the reasons for the delay caused in issuing the charge-sheet by stating that after receipt of reply to memos they further got the matter investigated by various audits. In the circumstances in my considered view the charge sheet and the entire disciplinary proceeding cannot be quashed on this ground.
7. A perusal of the disciplinary enquiry proceedings reveals that on 31-12-1990 the respondents declared their evidence to be closed. On that date the Presenting Officer of the respondent Bank sought time to enable him to produce the documents directed to be produced at the request of the petitioner by enquiry officer. The said request of the Presenting Officer was accepted by the enquiry officer and the matter was fixed for 10-1-1991 for production of the said documents demanded by the petitioner. On 10-1-1991, it was stated on behalf of the respondents through Presenting Officer that the documents have not been received from the Regional Office, Shahdol as the concerned Officer was on leave and that the Presenting Officer himself was busy in administrative work in the circumstances the respondents sought a day’s time to produce the documents. This request was accepted by the enquiry officer and he fixed the matter for 12-1-1991. On 12-1-1991 instead of producing the documents, respondents raised an objection about the relevancy of the said documents. The enquiry officer though expressed his dissatisfaction about the attitude of the respondents, asked the petitioner to demonstrate the relevancy of the documents. On this the petitioner pointed out that the documents are relevant in view of the preliminary objection raised by him when the enquiry was initiated. The petitioner stated that the documents demanded by him are basic material and important to establish the grounds raised by him in the preliminary objection. He stated that in order to prove the in competency of the authority who had issued the charge-sheet the documents are relevant. On being satisfied about the petitioner’s reply about relevancy of the documents the enquiry officer directed the respondents to produce atleast some of the documents which are from Sl. Nos. 1 to 7 of the list of documents (Annexure P-12) submitted by the petitioner before the enquiry officer. Thereafter the enquiry officer fixed the matter for defence evidence for 14-1-1991. On 14-1-1991, the petitioner produced three witnesses out of the seven witnesses which he cited as his witnesses. The evidence of the three witnesses produced by the petitioner was recorded on 14-1-1991. As regard the remaining four witnesses the petitioner stated to the enquiry officer that the witnesses could not be produced in spite of his best efforts as they are out of their villages to attend the on going fair at nearby villages, viz., Janakpuri and Lapri for their business purposes. The petitioner requested for fixing the matter on the next day. Accordingly, the enquiry officer fixed the matter for recording the evidence of the remaining witnesses for 15-1-1991. On 15-1-1991 the petitioner could not produce those witnesses as they did not return to their villages. He accordingly sought time of 8 to 10 days for producing them before the enquiry officer for evidence. The enquiry officer refused the petitioner’s request by observing that yesterday the matter was fixed for today on his own request and the matter cannot be adjourned for indefinite period in the compelling circumstances and in view of abnormal delay. As regards the documents required to be produced by the respondents the enquiry officer directed the respondents to produce the documents, but instead of producing the same the respondents requested for a month’s time to produce the documents. On which the enquiry officer directed the Presenting Officer that the documents be forwarded to the petitioner’s representative at his present place of posting latest up to 13-2-1991, however, the enquiry officer declared the enquiry proceedings to be finally concluded on 15-1-1991 itself.
8. Having regard to the aforesaid proceedings, in my considered view the enquiry officer has denied the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. From the return filed by the respondents it is clear that after receipt of the reply to the memos submitted by the petitioner the alleged irregularities/lapses were further investigated. In the investigation on the basis of internal, external and 100% audit, the respondents found that prima facie case exists against the petitioner for issuance of the charge-sheet. The petitioner requested for supply of various documents including 100% audit report on the basis of which the charge-sheet was issued to him. The respondents on number of occasions requested for grant of time to produce documents. The enquiry proceedings reveal that the enquiry officer did not reject the petitioner’s prayer to produce the said documents from the respondents. It was also not the case that the documents were being demanded as a dilly-dally tactics on the part of the petitioner or his intention was to stall the enquiry by any means. In this background the closing of the enquiry without getting the documents produced on record amounts to denial of fair opportunity to the petitioner.
9. In regard to the denial of reasonable and just opportunity to the petitioner to lead his evidence, from the enquiry proceedings it is clear that for recording the evidence of the respondents several opportunities were given by the enquiry officer. The matter was fixed for recording of the petitioner’s evidence for the first time on 14-1-1991. On that day the petitioner produced and examined three witnesses out of the 7 cited witnesses. To produce the remaining witnesses the petitioner sought time by stating the cause that the witnesses had gone to attend fair at other villages for their business purposes. The petitioner’s contention appears to be just, that under a bona fide belief that the witnesses would return on the next day instead of seeking a long adjournment he sought a day’s time to produce them. However, to his misfortune the witnesses did not return on the next day, in the circumstances he prayed for short time of 8 to 10 days to produce them. However, the enquiry officer rejected the said prayer on the ground that there is considerable long delay in the enquiry proceedings and under compelling circumstances he is unable to adjourn the matter. A perusal of the list of witnesses shows that the witnesses which were to be examined are the borrowers to whom it was alleged that the petitioner benefited in sanctioning and releasing loan. The said witnesses were material witnesses for the just decision of the matter. The refusal of grant of adjournment on 15-1-1991 appears to be undue harsh step taken by the enquiry officer, more particularly, having regard to the reason assigned by the petitioner and the grave nature of the charges levelled against the petitioner. Thus, in my considered view the enquiry officer has failed to observe principles of natural justice while conducting the departmental enquiry against the petitioner and denied him the just and fair opportunity to defend himself.
10. So far as contention that the Disciplinary Authority has not communicated the petitioner the tentative reasons for disagreeing with the findings of the enquiry officer, it is now well settled that even when the Rules in regard to giving opportunity to the officer are silent and Disciplinary Authority does not give an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent officer and records finding different from those of the enquiring authority that the charges against the officer were established, an opportunity of hearing has to be read into the Rule by which procedure for dealing with the enquiring authority’s report is provided because it would be contrary to the principles of natural justice if a delinquent officer who has already been held to be not guilty by the enquiring authority, is found guilty without being afforded an opportunity of hearing on the basis of some evidence and material on which the finding of not guilty has already been recorded. It is also well settled that the delinquent officer will have to be given an opportunity to persuade Disciplinary Authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer and it is not necessary for the delinquent to show that some prejudice was caused to him. See Punjab National Bank v. Kunjbihari Mishra , Yoginath D. Bagde v. State of Maharashtra and State Bank of India and Ors. v. K.P. Narayanan Kutti .
11. In regard to the challenge to the order of the Appellate Authority on the ground that the order being a non-speaking order is not sustainable, I find that Appellate Authority without adverting to the various grounds raised by the petitioner to challenge the enquiry proceedings, the order of enquiry officer and the order of Disciplinary Authority, has dismissed the petitioner’s appeal merely by observing that in his view the Disciplinary Authority has applied its mind and has properly analysed all the facts brought in the enquiry and has arrived at the correct conclusion. In my view the Appellate Authority while considering the appeal against the order of dismissal is required to consider the grounds raised by the delinquent employee and is required to pass a reasoned order. The order of the Appellate Authority does not satisfy the aforesaid test, the order being passed mechanically without appreciating and considering the grounds raised by the petitioner is liable to be quashed.
12. Accordingly, the petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed in part. The impugned order of dismissal dated 22-2-1993 (Annexure P-1) and appellate order dated 18-8-1994 (Annexure P-2) are quashed. The matter is remitted to the enquiry officer with direction to the respondents to produce the documents from Sl. Nos. 1 to 7 demanded by the petitioner vide Annexure P-12, thereafter, the enquiry officer shall proceed with the Disciplinary Enquiry from the stage of recording the evidence of the petitioner’s remaining witnesses. As the matter is very old the respondents are directed to conclude the disciplinary proceedings expeditiously but not later than tour months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is expected from the petitioner that he will fully co-operate in the early conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings. The petition is partly allowed. No orders as to costs.