ORDER
V. Gopala Gowda, J.
1. The petitioner-association which is a registered union under the provisions of the Trade Unions Act, 1926, with a view to safeguard the interest of its members, have filed this writ petition challenging the legality and validity of the circular bearing No. PA/CIR/4 dated February 5, 1992, Annexure-B issued by the Respondent-Bank represented by the Deputy Managing Director (Perosnnel), insofar as it relates to denial of lodging/boarding charges to the defence representatives and defence witnesses as illegal, null and void and without jurisdiction and the same is violative of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the employees of the Bank under Arts. 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India and, further violation of the principles of natural justice.
2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayers just above by urging the following legal contentions:
It is stated that the petitioner Association the Officers’ federation has got the membership of them, who are employed in the State Bank of India throughout India and are Officers of all Grades and Scales, i.e. from Junior Management Grade-Scale I to Top Executive Scale. VII and special scale.
3. The respondent-Bank is the statutory body constituted under the provisions of the State Bank of India Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”, in short). It is a ‘State’ as defined in Article 12 of the Constitution of India and amenable to the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226. According to the Act the Bank carries on the business of banking. It has got power to determine the terms and conditions of service of its employees and officers. The management of the Bank has got power to determine the terms and conditions of appointment and other requirements of the officers including advisers and employees of the Bank, that power is vested in the Central Board of Directors of the Bank. In exercise of the power conferred under the Act the Central Board of Directors of the Bank had framed service rules called “State Bank of India (Supervising Staff) Service Rules, 1975” (hereinafter referred to as “the Service Rules” in short).
4. Chapter VI Section I of the said Service Rules contain Conduct Rules 32 to 48. Chapter 6 Sec. 2 contain Discipline and Appeal Rules 49 to 52.
5. Rule 50(2)(vii) states that in a departmental enquiry the charge-sheeted employee may take the assistance of another employee. The Rule 50(2)(vii) and Rule 3(u) of the Service Rules are reproduced below:
“50(2)(vii) The employee may take the assistance of an employee as defined in Clause (u) of Rule 3 (hereinafter referred to as the employee’s representative) but shall not engage a legal practitioner for the purpose.
Provided that where the Presenting Officer is a public servant other than an employee of the Bank, the employee may take the assistance of any public servant.
Note: The employee shall not take the assistance of any employee who has three pending disciplinary cases on hand in which he has to give assistance.”
3(u) “Employee” means a Senior Staff Officer, an Officer or a person to whom these rules are applied by Rule 2(2).”
The Central Board, as above had also framed another set of Rules called ‘State Bank of India Officers (Determination of Terms and Conditions of Service) Order, 1979’ (“the Order 79, in short) which governs the grades of officers, their pay scales, travelling allowance and promotion etc. The travelling allowances have been approved by the Executive Committee of the Central Board of Directors in its meeting held on November 30, 1991 vide Annexure-A.
6. It is contended by the learned counsel Sri N.R. Rajanna appearing on behalf of the Federation that an employee, who goes on duty to some other place from the actual place of his work, on tour he is entitled for travelling, halting and lodging allowances apart from normal salary. The Deputy Managing Director (Personnel), who has issued Circular-B which is in contravention of the statutory service rules, as per the same the officers, who attend the Departmental Enquiry, as presenting officers on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority, as prosecution witnesses to give evidence to establish charges against the delinquent officer, are entitled to draw the said allowances. The officials, who attend the Departmental Enquiry, will be entitled for the said allowances, as the defence representatives, as permissible under Rule 50(2)(vii) read with Rule 3(u) of the Service Rules and that all the officials, who will be examined as defence witnesses in support of the delinquent official are entitled to the said allowances on par with the Presenting Officers, who will be appearing on behalf of the Disciplinary authority, as the witnesses on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority.
7. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the action of the respondent-Bank by the administrative circular, is not only contrary to the said Service Rules, but also violative of the said fundamental rights and taking away the benefit of the allowances to the delinquent officials and taking away the said defence permissible to them to establish the case of the delinquent officials before the Departmental Enquiry Officer.
8. It is also vehemently contended by the counsel that the said circular is bad in law, as the same is in contravention of the Service Rules, State Bank of India Officers (Determination of Terms and Condtions of Service) Order, 1979 (in short, “the Order 1979”) and the law declared by this Court in Writ Appeals No.2074 and 2075 of 1991 decided on August 31, 1995 in the case of Karnataka Handloom Development Corporation and the Karnataka Commercial Employees Association in which proceedings the challenge was with regard to Regulation 76(iv)(A) was on par with the grounds taken in W.P. Nos. 19366/1985 c/w 7771 of 1986 &: 321 of 1987 in which petitions this Court following the views expressed by the Division Bench in the said appeals observed that:
“The classification made between a Presenting Officer who could take more than two enquiries at a time and an officer employee defending the other officer employee in more than two pending cases on hand cannot be accepted. The classification is arbitrary and unreasonable having no relation to the objects sought to be achieved by the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1980.”
9. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits the abovesaid classfication made by this Court in the abovesaid decisions is liable to be quahsed in this petition.
10. The respondent-bank has filed a detailed counter in which it has sought to justify Bank’s impugned circular contendig that it is not liable to pay lodging/boarding charges and other allowances to the officials as per Regulation 50(2)(vii), it is liable to pay only to the Presenting Officers and its witnesses, who are on duty in connection with the work of the Bank are entitled to allowances. The Officers, who attend the enquiry either as the defence representatives or defence witnesses On behalf of the delinquent officers will be the Presenting Officers performing only the Bank duty, whereas the payment of allowances to the Presenting Officers and the prosecution witnessess was sought to be justified. The contentions and interpretation sought to be placed by the Bank required to be examined, whether it is in conformity with the Service Rules and the fundamental rights guaranteed to the Officers, as above? However it is contended on behalf of the Bank that in respect of the defence representatives and defence witnesses, the payment of allowances extended to them is only a concesssion and as a matter of right which cannot be enforced in a Court of law. It has been further contended by the said counsel for the bank that the grounds urged in support of the contentions on bahalf of the petitioner are wholly untenable in law. It is also further contended that there is no invidious discrimination as urged in the grounds of the writ petition. The learned counsel for the respondent-Bank further submits that no prejudice is shown to have been caused to the Officers, as to how the impugned circular has affected their rights as contended by them.
11. After having heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of both the parties, this Court, now proceeds to examine the following points for consideration:
1. Whether the impugned circular Annexure-B is in contravention of Rule 50(2)(vii) of the Service Rules read with Rule 3(u) and “the Order of 79”.
2. Whether the Deputy Managing Director (Personnel), on behalf of the respondent had the authority and power for issuing impugned circular?
3. Whether the impugned circular takes away the rights of the delinquent officials guaranteed by the Service Rules?
12. To appreciate just the above points, I have perused the writ petition avernments and ground along with the relevant Rule 50(2)(vii) read with Rule 3(u) of the Service Rules. The conduct of disciplinary proceedings by the Disciplinary Authority is the statutory duty cast upon it in exercise of its power under the service Rules for imposing either minor or major penalties enumerated under the Service Rules. It is well settled position of law that the Disciplinary Authority has to strictly follow and adhere to the statutory rules in conduct of enquiries against the employees, who will be facing the charges of misconducts enumerated under the service Rules.
13. The conduct of enquiry in exercise of power under the Service Rules by the Disciplinary Authoruty entails serious civil consequences upon the Officers, as it would affect their fundamental rights and the statutory rights conferred upon them under the Constitution and under the Service Rules.
14. Therefore, the Apex Court in Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi, (1975-I-LLJ-399) (SC) has laid down the principle that the statutory rules governing service conditions, such as appointment and initiation of disiciplinary proceedings against the officers, who are in its employment has to strictly adhere to the Service Rules. The employment of the Officers is. public employment, the service regulations must be scrupulously followed by the Disciplinary Authority, as it would entail serious civil consequences upon such officers of depriving their life including livelihood by either passing an order of removal or dismissal or imposing any such other penalty as contemplated under the service rules.
15. Therefore, in such circumstances stuarutory right is conferred upon the officials of the Bank under Rule 50(2)(vii) of the Service Rules to take the assistance of an employee, as the defence representative as provided under Rule 3(u) of the Service Rules to represent the case of the delinquent official before the enquiry officer which is permissible under Rules. Further the law has been laid down in catena of cases that enquiry must be conducted in accordance with the relevant Service Rules and in compliance with the principles of natural justice.
16. The learned counsel Mr. Rajanna appearing on behalf of the petitioner has placed strong reliance on the unreported judgments of this Court in the cases referred to above, i.e., from the Order of the Division Bench in W.P. Nos. 19366/1985 C/w 7771/1986 & 321 of 1987, wherein interpretation of Regulation 76(iv)(A) came to be struck down by the Division Bench by observing as hereunder:
“There is no two opinion that in every domestic enquiry or enquiry of any nature resulting in civil or other consequences the delinquent is entitled to be heard and no adverse order shall be made against such delinquent except providing the opportunity of being heard. The right to be heard as stated supra, is not merely calling upon one to say whatever he wants to say but an opportunity shall be given to him to make an effective representation. It is no doubt true that in providing such effective representation to the delinquent, it is open to the management to regulate such opportunity in accordance with the Rules, Regulations or Standing Orders governing the appellant Board.”
17. The Division Bench of this Court in the case referred (supra), laid down the law in the background of Rule 76(iv)(A) of the Service Rules, as in the present writ petition and the law laid down in that case with all force applicable to the facts to this present writ petition. Therefore the ratio laid down in that case has to be applied to the facts of this case and, therefore this Court is of the considered view that the impugned circular is violative of Articles 14, 16, 21 & 39(d) of the Constitution and the statutory rights conferred upon the officers of the State Bank of India.
18. Rule 50(2)(vii) confers statutory right upon the officials to have the assistance of a co-employee, as defined under the above Service Rules to defend such officer before the Enquiry Officer. Under the impugned circular the Managing Director has granted certain monetary benefits in favour of the Presenting Officers and to the prosecution witnesses to facilitate the Disciplinary Authority to establish the charges against the delinquent official. Hence the same benefits must be extended to the officials, who attend the enquiry as defence representative and as defence witnesses on’ behalf of the delinquent officals, so as to give effect to the objects and achieve the purpose for which the statutory rules are framed as above. If such benefits are not extended to the officials, there is no rationale behind the impugned circular, as to what is the basis for the classfication of the employer having been conferred to bring the Presenting Officer and his witnesses to establish the charges and in denying the monetary benefits to the defence representative and defence witnesses, as has been extended to the Presenting Officer and Prosecution Witnesses, which action of the bank in issuing circular would not only infringe the fundamental rights guaranteed to the Officers but is also violative of the Service Rules.
19. The respondent-bank being a public undertaking, the employment of the delinquent official is a public employment. The object of Regulation 50(2)(vii) is for proving serious charges of misconducts against the delinquent official. Therefore there is no justification on the part of the respondent bank in differently treating the Presenting Officer and the prosecution witnesses with that of the defence representatives and the defence witnesses. In my opinion the said classfication in the circular being issued without jurisdiction and it is a clear case of invidious discrimination, which is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India as the respondent-Bank being a public service undertaking and it would defeat the object of Rule 50(2)(vii) read with Rule 3(u) of the, Service Rules and also under the State Bank of India Officers (Determination of Terms and Conditions of Service) Order, 1979. Hence, in view of the decision of this Court in W.A. Nos. 2074 & 2075 of 1991 and W.P. Nos. 19366/1985 C/w other W.Ps., dated December 4, 1997, it is opined in this writ petition that the impugned circular is violative of Articles 14, 16 & 21 of the Constitution of India and Rule 50(2)(vii) of the Service Rules. Therefore, the submission of the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner is well founded and the same must be accepted.
20. Counter submission made on bahalf of the respondent-bank Mr. Subramanyam on behalf of Sri B.C. Prabahakar, learned counsel, for the respondent-bank in justification of the impugned circular is wholly untenable and the same cannot be accepted.
21. In so far as the second point with regard to the authority and competency of the Dy. Managing Director of the Bank in issuing the impugned circular is concerned, as already stated the Service Rules are framed by the Central Board of Directors of the Bank in exercise of its power under Sections 17, 43 and 50 of the State Bank of India Act, 1955. Therefore, he had no competency to issue the circular contrary to the Service Rules. With regard to the third point concerned, it is observed that the right conferred under Regulation 50(2)(vii) read with Rule 3(u) of the Service Rules cannot be taken away by way of circular issued by the Deputy Managing Director, who is not competent in law for issuance of the impugned circular. On this ground also the petitioner must succeed in this writ petition.
22. For the reasons stated above, this writ petition must be allowed. Hence the writ petition is allowed. Rule made absolute. The impugned circular Annexure-B is declared as null and void, as the same had been issued without competency and authority in law and the same is violative of Articles 14, 16 & 39(d) of the Constitution of India and accordingly the same is hereby quashed.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, no costs are awarded.