(2006) 3 SCC 251;
(2007) 11 SCC 517;
(2010) 1 SCC 517;
(2012) 3 SCC 580;
(2014) 10 SCC 589;
(2020) 19 SCC 375;
(1999) 1 SCC 733
14. Regulation 39 mentions the Minor Penalties and the Major
Penalties, which can be imposed on an employee and merely states that the
penalties can only be imposed by an order in writing signed by the Competent
Authority, that such order shall not be passed by the Competent Authority
without a charge or charges framed in writing and given to the officer, and
enquiry is held in which the officer would have reasonable opportunity to
answer the charge or charges and defend himself.
15. Regulation 41 permits the Competent Authority to delegate the
power to an officer, who is in a higher scale to the officer against whom the
proceeding is instituted, to conduct the enquiry.
16. The Vigilance Manual, on which reliance is placed by
respondents, states in paragraph-13 of "Regular Hearing" thereof as under:
"13. Since Enquiry Officer's report is intended to assist
the Disciplinary Authority to come to a conclusion about the guilt
of the CSO/CSE, the Disciplinary Authority has the authority to
disagree or agree in full or in part with the findings of the
Enquiry Officer on the basis of the evidences produced in the
enquiry and the depositions of the witnesses of both the sides, if
the Disciplinary Authority himself has not acted as the Enquiry
Officer and he has agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer
that the charges have been found to be proved, the Disciplinary
Authority would advise the CSO/CSE to submit his representation
on the findings of the Enquiry Officer within 15 days. (If the
Enquiry Officer has found the charges not proved and the
Disciplinary Authority disagrees with him, the Disciplinary
Authority would pass one Speaking Order narrating therein the
reasons for disagreement with the Enquiry Officer and would
send a copy of the findings of the Enquiry Officer along with the
Speaking Order advising the CSO/CSE to submit his
representation on the same within a period of 15 days. The
Disciplinary Authority has the inherent right to remit the case for
further enquiry if he considers that there are grave lacunae or
procedural defects which vitiate the enquiry. Under the
circumstances, the Disciplinary Authority may also "order de
novo enquiry" appointing fresh Enquiry Officer/Presenting
Officer to conduct the enquiry if the Disciplinary Authority
reasonably believes that there has been improper application of
mind on the part of either or both by Enquiry Officer/Presenting
Officer in discharge of their respective duties and
responsibilities. The fact that the enquiry has gone in favour of
the CSO/CSE or the evidence led in the enquiry has gaps, should
not be a reason for remitting the case for further enquiry. In such
case, the Disciplinary Authority may disagree with the findings of
the Enquiry Officer and would pass the Speaking Order. On
receipt of the submission of the CSO/CSE, if tendered within the
specified date, the Disciplinary Authority would suggest certain
punishment commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct
proved against the CSO/CSE and would seek Second Stage
Advice of the CVO or CVC through the CVO."
(emphasis supplied)
17. It appears that the Vigilance Manual goes further than what is
contained in the Regulations and permits a Disciplinary Authority not only to
remit the case for further enquiry, if he considers that there are grave lacunae
and procedural defects which vitiate the enquiry, but also permits him to order
a de novo enquiry appointing a fresh Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry if
the Disciplinary Authority reasonably believes that there has been improper
application of mind on the part of the Enquiry Officer in discharge of his
duties and responsibilities. It also states that the fact that the enquiry has gone
in favour of the Charge-sheeted Officer or the evidence led in the enquiry has
gaps, should not be a reason for remitting the case for further enquiry and that
in such a case, the Disciplinary Authority may disagree with the findings of
the Enquiry Officer and would pass a speaking order. It also permits the
Enquiry Officer or the Disciplinary Authority to suggest certain punishment
commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct proved against the Charge-
sheeted Officer and permits him to seek second stage advice of the Central
Vigilance Organization.
18. In our opinion, the Vigilance Manual, which permits the holding
of a de-novo enquiry cannot prevail over the Regulations referred to supra,
which contain no such provision.
19. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in K.R. Deb (supra), rules
such as the one contained in the Regulations of the respondents-Bank really
provide only for one enquiry; but it may be possible if in a particular case
there has been no proper enquiry because some serious defect has crept into
the enquiry or some important witnesses were not available at the time of the
enquiry or were not examined for some other reason, the Disciplinary
Authority may ask the Enquiry Officer to record further evidence.
But there is no provision in the Rule considered in the said
judgment of the Supreme Court for completely setting aside previous
enquiries on the ground that the report of the Enquiry Officer or Officers does
not appeal to the Disciplinary Authority and the Disciplinary Authority has
enough powers to reconsider the evidence itself and come to its own
conclusion.
The Supreme Court deprecated the practice of the Disciplinary
Authority in not taking responsibility himself and held that he cannot direct
de-novo enquiry till he gets an officer to give an Enquiry Report against the
delinquent employee/officer. It held that such a procedure would amount to
harassing the officer/employee. The same principle was reiterated in the other
judgments cited by the counsel for the appellant.
20. In the judgment cited by the counsel for the respondents-Bank,
i.e. P. Thayagarajan (supra), the Supreme Court, however, took a different
view. But in that case Rule 27 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules,
1955 enabled the Commandant to himself hold an enquiry and record his
findings and pass orders where he has power to do so and also permitted him
to get enquiry conducted by any officer other than himself in which event the
officer conducting the enquiry was to forward his report together with the
proceedings to the Commandant, who shall record his findings and pass orders
where he has power to do so.
In that case, when the Service Rules provided that evidence in the
enquiry, when it is given orally has to be recorded by the officer conducting
the enquiry himself or by any other officer, the said procedure was not
followed and certain letters addressed to the Enquiry Officer by two witnesses
were themselves treated as statements, though not recorded by the Enquiry
Officer during the enquiry in the presence of the parties.
The Supreme Court, in such peculiar circumstances, held that
such a procedure was in violation of the CRPF Rules, and in such a situation
only setting aside the enquiry and directing a de novo enquiry might be
justified. It stated:
"8. In the present case, the basis upon which the disciplinary
authority set aside the enquiry is that the procedure adopted by
the enquiry officer was contrary to the relevant rules and affects
the rights of the parties and not that the report does not appeal to
him. When important evidence, either to be relied upon by the
Department or by the delinquent official, is shut out, this would
not result in any advancement of any justice but on the other
hand, result in a miscarriage thereof. Therefore we are of the
view that Rule 27(c) enables the disciplinary authority to record
his findings on the report and to pass an appropriate order
including ordering a de novo enquiry in a case of the present
nature."
(emphasis supplied)
21. The said judgment is clearly distinguishable because in the
instant case, the reasons assigned by the respondent No.2 for directing de novo
enquiry do not fall in the category indicated in the judgment cited by the
counsel for the respondents-Bank.
22. In paragraph-g of the speaking order dt.29.01.2024, the following
has been recorded by the Disciplinary Authority as justifying the de novo
enquiry:
"g. Perusing the Enquiry Findings
dt.20.10.2023(received on 01.11.2023), it is revealed that the
Charge-1 is not proved in spite of having sufficient materials viz.
(i) Point No. 2 as laid down in the explanation letter
vide No.TGB/HO/HRD/F.1032/2023/786/23 dt.25.05.2023
(exhibited as ME-1 as per Days' proceeding dt.12.09.2023), it is
revealed into the effect that
"... You have also shown unprofessional behavior with
CM(HR), made illogical arguments by using foul words on
22.05.2023 at HO as reported by him..."
No findings/interpretation is being found in the Enquiry
Report regarding the elimination of the allegation as made in
point No.02 of the explanation letter dt.25.05.2023.
(ii) Nineteenth and Twentieth line (from the bottom) as
laid down in the first page of the minutes of 2nd day(i.e.
12.09.2023) it is revealed into the effect that
"... Both MW1 and MW2 confirms to the content of letter
dtd. 25.05.2023 issued by the General Manager, TGB, HR
Division and on being identification the same is exhibited as ME-
1..."
In spite of taking into a consideration the letter
dt.25.05.2023 as ME-1, no such explanation/interpretation is
being found in the enquiry report as to how the said point(i.e.
point No.02) as mentioned in the letter dt.25.05.2023 issued by
the General Manager was put out of sight?
(iii) Perusing the twelve and thirteenth line(from the
bottom)as laid down in the first page of the minutes of 2 nd day(i.e.
12.09.2023) at the time of cross examination of the MW1 of the
part of CSO, it is further revealed into the effect that
"... CM(HR) asked her to comply with the Bank's Order.
Her body language became aggressive and her vocal tone was
very aggressive as well..."
At the time of cross examination taken by the CSO, it is
admitted by the witness (MW-l) in presence of the CSO that the
body language and vocal tone was aggressive. On admitting the
same by the witness, no objection is raised from the CSO.
Corroborating the letter dt.25.05.2023 with the evidence adduced
by the MW-1, does it not indicate that the CSO violated the
discipline of the Bank by severe misbehavior with her Higher
Official (i.e. CM-HRD)?
(iv) While cross examination on the part of the CSO,
MW-1 confirmed in tenth and eleventh line(from the bottom), into
the effect that
"CSO to MW1-Did I physically violent or did I pelt stones
at CM(HR) that day. MW1- No, but certain words were used
which are not acceptable in a professional sitting..."
At the time of cross examination, taken by the CSO, it is
further admitted by the witness(MW-1) in presence of the CSO
that the CSO has used words which are not acceptable in a
professional sitting. In that case, the CSO did not make any
objection and nothing was given in her support. Corroborating
the letter dt.25.05.2023 with the evidence adduced by the MW-1,
does it not specify that the CSO violated the discipline of the Bank
by using such unprofessional words to her Higher Authority
which is not acceptable in a profession sitting?
AND
Whereas: Considering all the facts and circumstances
evidence on record, it is revealed that there is grave lacunae
and/or procedural defects, therefore, the Disciplinary Authority is
hereby disagreed with the Enquiry Findings
dt.20.10.2023(received on 01.11.2023) submitted by the Enquiry
Officer(EO) and henceforth, it is necessary to start "de novo
enquiry" by vitiating the instant proceedings thereon."
23. Having perused the speaking order dt.29.01.2024 issued by the
Disciplinary Authority in the instant case and the reasons assigned in sub-
paras (i), (ii), (iii) and (iv) of para-g thereof, we are of the opinion that the
reasons assigned appear to be mere disagreement with the findings of the
Enquiry Officer, but not a case where there has been any serious violation of
procedural law like in the judgment of the Supreme Court in P. Thayagarajan
(supra).
24. In such a situation, the Disciplinary Authority, if he is not in
agreement with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, can undoubtedly
communicate the reasons for his disagreement to the appellant, and after
taking the explanation of the appellant to the same, take his own view in the
matter as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Punjab National Bank &
others v. Kunj Behari Misra11, which has been reiterated in other judgments
subsequently.
25. For these reasons, we are of the opinion that the speaking order
dt.29.01.2024 passed by the respondent No.2 remitting the matter for a
de-novo enquiry after setting aside the previous Enquiry Report, cannot be
sustained. It is, accordingly, set aside. Consequently, all subsequent
proceedings issued by the respondents-Bank on the basis of the speaking order
dt.29.01.2024 are also set aside.
26. The matter is remitted back to the respondent No.2 to only
communicate to the appellant the reasons for his disagreement with the
findings of the inquiry officer within 2 weeks from today. The appellant shall
offer her objections/explanation/representation against the same within 4(four)
weeks of receipt of the same from the respondent No.2. The respondent No.2
shall himself then pass a reasoned order in accordance with law and
communicate it to the appellant.
27. In view of the above, the order of the learned Single Judge dt.
05.03.2024 in WP(C) No.171 of 2024 is set aside and the Writ Appeal is
allowed to the above extent.
Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(BISWAJIT PALIT, J) (M.S. RAMACHANDRA RAO, CJ)
Pulak
PULAK BANIK Digitally signed by PULAK BANIK
Date: 2026.03.12 16:34:51 +05'30'
(1998) 7 SCC 84
