S.G. Nayak And Anr. vs Canara Bank And Anr. on 3 December, 2004

[Cites 8, Cited by 3]

Karnataka High Court

S.G. Nayak And Anr. vs Canara Bank And Anr. on 3 December, 2004

Equivalent citations: ILR2005KAR3449

ORDER PASSED BY THE DISCIPLINE AUTHORITY-WHETHER VIOLATIVE OF PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE IN AS MUCH AS IT IS NOT A SPEAKING ORDER WHICH DOES NOT DICLOSE THE APPLICATION OF MIND OF THE DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY-HELD-When a disciplinary authority, on receipt of the report of the enquiring authority holding the delinquent employee guity of the charges levelled against him, he is expected to give a show-cause notice enclosing a copy of the report. When the delinquent employee gives his submissions or objections to the said report, he is bound to consider the enquiry report, the entire material collected during the enquiry, and then look into the objections filed by the delinquent employees, and then make up his mind agreeing or disagreeing with the finding of the enquiring authority. If the disciplinary authority agrees with the findings of the enquiring authority, it need not give detailed reasons as to why he intends to agree with the findings of the enquiring authority. But, he is bound to give reasons, in order to show his application of mind to the material which was before him coupled with the objections of the delinquent employee has urged. How the disciplinary authority should word his order, how much reasons should he given in the said order, language which should be employed in the said order, cannot be laid down as a proposition of law. But, the true test is when the authority which is vested with the power to review the said order looks into the said order, that authority should be satisfied that the disciplinary authority had applied its mind to the material before him before the order was passed. Therefore, in the order of the disciplinary authority, there must be sufficient indication to show the application of mind by the disciplinary authority before it records its findings. It is not the law that no reasons be given. The law is detailed reasons need not be given. Separate reasons need not be given. But, reasons must be given. Giving reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration. Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live-links between the mind of the decision taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusions arrived at. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. Right to reasons is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system. Reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter dealt with, so that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him.

Impugned orders passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority quashed.

ORDER

N. Kumar, J.

1. As Identical charges are levelled against the petitioners, common enquiry was conducted, common evidence adduced, though separate orders are passed, common questions of law and facts arise for consideration in these two writ petitions, they are disposed of by a common order.

2. The petitioner is W.P.No. 30770/95 is one Sri S.G. Nayak who was at the relevant point of time working as Divisional Manager at Mandvi Branch of Canara Bank, Bombay, during the period May 1986 to July 1989. The petitioner in W.P.No. 30391/95 is one Sri P.L. Prabhu, who was working as Senior Manager in the same Branch during the period from 31.01.1988 to 21.01.1989. Against these two officers on 31st August, 1990, separate Article of Charges were issued accompanied by statement of imputation. Broadly, the charges levelled against these two petitioners are:

Sai Group of Concerns had three accounts. One in the name of M/s. Sri Overseas International, second in the name of M/s. Sai Chemicals and third in the name of M/s. Ganapati International. They were enjoying various credit facilities. M/s. Sai Group of Concerns were tendering cheques drawn on RBI for credit to their account with the branch. The petitioners permitted drawings against these cheques and in turn the branch was issuing RBI cheques favouring various banks. They have permitted these customers to over draw the amount beyond the permitted limit and the same was not reported in F.637. They did not ensure that parties submitted stock statement in time and that value furnished in the stock statement were not properly verified for their correctness resulting in inadequate securities to cover the liability. Further it was alleged that the amounts received from M/s. Kantilal & Co., for investment through Canfina and investment in short term deposits with the Bank were diverted to Sai Group of Concerns and petitioners were parties to the conversion. The said facts were concealed from Circle Office and they permitted mis-utilization of the amounts received from M/s. Kantilal & Co., which amounts were meant for crediting to Can Bank Financial Services Ltd., The aforesaid amounts were received from M/s. Kantilal Co., agreeing to pay interest ranging from 24% to 27% and the said transactions were confirmed in violation of RBI directives on interest rates on deposits. No deposit receipt was issued and instead pay orders favouring different companies were issued thereby allowing the amount deposited with the bank to be misutilised. Subsequently, the period of deposit ws extend thus allowing the amount tendered by M/s. Kantilal & Co., being misutilized by M/s. Sai Group of Concerns which amounts to conversion. They permitted such drawings without sanction continuously. On account of over-drawings the liability in the account of M/s. Sai Overseas International want up to Rs. 216 lakhs as on 28.02.1989. The liability went up to Rs. 20 lakhs in the account of M/s. Sai Chemicals and Rs. 15 lakhs in the account of M/s. Ganapati International, as against sanction limit of Rs. 3 lakhs and Rs. 10 lakhs respectively. Therefore, these petitioners were accused of violating RBI guidelines and by channellising the funds of one party to another party, misutilization, conversion of funds and thus they have failed to perform their duties with utmost honestly, integrity, devotion and diligence and thus contravening Regulation 3(1) read with Regulation 24 of the Canara Bank Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations 1976.

3. Both the petitioners on receipt of aforesaid charge-sheets have submitted separate replies. The said reply is substantially the same. They contend that RBI cheques were not presented through the clearing process within the branch. RBI cheques were sent to Funds & Investment Section for direct credit into Bank's account with RBI. The credits to the parties account are given against the cleared RBI cheques. These transactions were well within the bonafide practice of the Bank and the credits were against duly cleared RBI cheques and therefore, it is incorrect to perceive the same as accommodative. Permitting drawings against RBI cheques in respect of cleared cheques does not entail exercising of power or authority. Hence, it is neither misuse of official position nor a matter to be reported. The liability is to be cleared by the party and the petitioners could only make attempts to get it cleared. However, if the party fails to regularise, it cannot be deemed that the petitioners have failed to ensure regularisation.

4. P.L. Prabhu, has specifically contended that he has not allowed any over-drawings in any of the accounts mentioned in the Statement of imputation. As the over drawings were not allowed by him, there was nothing to be reported by him in F.637. However as a responsible officer, he has extracted the details of over-drawings from time to time and assisted the Divisional Manager in reporting the same in a consolidated manner. Whereas, the Divisional Manager, S.G. Nayak, contended that whatever over-drawings that were permitted by him have been reported by him through various letters explaining the reasons for allowing such over drawings. The over-drawings were reported mainly because they were without sanction. Although the matter was not reported in F 637 he has reported the same by letters 20.06.1998 and 30.12.1988 to give a total picture of the over-drawings duly explaining the reasons for allowing such over-drawings. Thus, a consolidated report was sent. He has also appraised the Circle office intermittently. He has stated that purpose of keeping the higher authorities informed has been served as letters have reflected more information than F.637. According to him F.637 is appropriate only in cases of causal transgressions. Both of them contend that verification of stock mentioned in the stock statement, the routine aspects were taken care of by the concerned sections of the branch which were independently attended to by the concerned officers in the section. However, they contend that inadequacy of the security would remain a fact irrespective of whether the stock statements were obtained promptly or not. However, they had feed back available from the section about the inadequacy of the security. They had explained the Circle Office the various factors taken into account by them while allowing the over-drawings taking cognizance of certain other securities available which would safeguard the interest of the Bank. The delay of submission of PR 2 had been adequately explained by the bank and reasons for overdrawings have been meticulously set out.

5. In respect of funds belonging to M/s. Kantilal & Co., it is stated that transaction was in the nature of Portfolio Management involving inter-corporate borrowings between M/s. Kantilal & Co., and Sai Group of Firms, facilitated by the branch as per the practice prevailing. As transactions fall into the category of Portfolio management, it is not correct to look at it as a matter of misutilization of funds, violation of RBI directives. The said transaction have been perceived wrongly as a cover up operation, misuse, conversion, violation of RBI directives on interest rates on deposit and the like. Perhaps, it is so perceived without identifying the transaction as Portfolio Management. It is stated that goods against which packing credit was granted were paid goods and hence payment to the seller was not warranted. As they were sure of the end use as to the purchase of merchandise and so there was no failure on their part. Therefore, they totally denied the charges levelled against them.

6. Not being satisfied with the reply given by the charge-sheeted employees, a domestic enquiry was initiated by the Bank. One M.N. Shenoy, Assistant General Manager of Canara Bank was appointed as enquiry authority. The enquiring authority initiated proceedings and issued notice to the parties, fixing the hearing date as 07.05.1991. On 07.05.1991 preliminary enquiry commenced. The documents on which the management relies on and the list of witness were handed over to the charge-sheeted employees. Then the charge-sheeted employees were asked to furnish the list of documents that they would like to inspect if any. The petitioners submitted that they would like to inspect the management documents first and then decide about listing their documents and witnesses from the defence side and for the said purpose 10 days time was granted. Thereafter, the petitioners on 16th May, 1991, requested the enquiry authority to direct the custodians to furnish the records/documents listed in the enclosure to enable them to defend themselves against the charges, P.L. Prabhu, in addition to the said letter also gave one more letter on 11th May, 1991, seeking for 5 documents. In reply to the request made by the petitioners for the documents, the documents were supplied, except 38 documents.

7. The management is support of its contention has examined M.V. Kamath, Deputy General Manager, HO, Bangalore as M.W-1. He is the officer who investigated the illegalities attributed to the petitioners. After such investigation he submitted a report, on the basis of which chargesheets were prepared. In addition to the said witness, they have examined four witnesses by name S.M. Pawaskar as M.W-2, K.B. Prabhu as M.W-3, M.B. Kamath as M.W.-4, and Yeshwant Ganvir as M.W-5. They have marked documents in all numbering 40, as M.Ex-1 to M.Ex-40. On behalf of petitioners, i.e., on behalf of defence, Shyamalal Kishnani, partner of Sai Overseas International was examined as D.W-1, N.S.V. Shenoy was examined as D.W-2, H.S.G Rao was examined as D. W-3 and P.L. Prabhu was examined as D.W-4. They marked in all 127 documents which were marked as D.Ex-1 to D.Ex-60/2. Thereafter the Inquiry Officer has questioned S.G. Nayak in pursuance of the power conferred under Regulation 6(17) of the Canara Bank Office Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976. Both the parties have submitted written briefs. On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Inquiry Officer has proceeded to pass two separate reports.

8. The report pertaining to S.G. Nayak is dated 26th March, 1993, where he has held that Charge Nos. 1, 2A, 2B, 3, 4, 4A, 4B, and 4C were proved and the petitioner S.G. Nayak has been found guilty of those charges. In so far as Charge No. 4D is concerned, he was found not guilty. In so far as P.L. Prabhu, is concerned, the Inquiry Officer by his report on 21st April, 1993 has held him guilty of Charge Nos. 1, 2A, 2B, 3, 4, 4B, 4C and 4D and he found him not guilty of charge 4A.

9. After the said findings were submitted by the Inquiry Officer to the disciplinary authority, the disciplinary authority issued a show cause notice to the petitioners enclosing a copy of the enquiry report and called upon them to show cause why the said report should not be accepted. Both the petitioners have filed detailed objections pointing out the various infirmities in the said report and requested the disciplinary authority to reject the said report. On consideration of the said objections filed by the petitioners, by order dated 28th March, 1994 agreeing with the findings of the enquiry authority, punishment of dismissal which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment was imposed, on 29th March, 1994, similar order came to be passed in respect of S.G. Nayak.

10. Aggrieved by these orders of punishment, both the petitioners preferred statutory appeal to the appellate authority setting out in detail the grounds for setting aside the order of punishment. They contended that the enquiry was biased, the documents sought for by them to substantiate the defence was not made available. The documents which they sought to produce was not taken on record thus shutting out valuable evidence in support of their defence, the enquiry authority also acted as a prosecutor in the case and therefore the entire enquiry is vitiated.

11. The appellate authority after considering the contentions raised, by separate orders on 12th May 1995, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the punishment. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have preferred these two writ petitions.

12. Sri P.S. Rajgopal, the Learned Counsel for the petitioner is both these writ petitions contended as under:

(a) The entire proceedings against the petitioners is on the basis of report submitted by Sri M.V. Kamath, Asst. General Manager, who has been examined as M.W-1. Admittedly, he was an officer holding a higher rank than that of an Inquiry Officer. He was Deputy General Manager on the date he gave evidence, whereas, the enquiring authority M.N. Shenoy was Assistant General Manager and therefore, he could not have given any findings contrary to the report submitted by M.W-1 as such the entire enquiry is vitiated.

(b) Secondly, he contended that the petitioners needed documents to disprove the case of the management and also prove their defence. They made a written requisition for those documents. 38 documents were not given to the petitioners either on the ground that they are not available or on the ground that they are privileged documents and on the ground that they are not with the authorities, and that they are not relevant.

(c) When the petitioners made an attempt to produce the xerox copy of the portion of the documents for which the respondents had claimed privilege, they were not received, by the enquiring authority, firstly on the ground that the management has claimed privilege, secondly, on the ground that it is a xerox copy and thirdly, on the ground that it is not complete in all respects. Which also vitiated the enquiry.

(d) Though witnesses were examined in chief by the Presenting Officer, the Inquiry Officer cross examined the witnesses and the tenor of the questions put clearly demonstrates that the Inquiry Officer was bent upon getting particular answer which he wanted to hold that petitioners are guilty of the charges levelled against him. He acted as a Prosecutor and Judge in the case, which shows the biased mind of the Inquiry Officer.

(e) The disciplinary authority without considering the objections filed by the petitioners to the said report has mechanically accepted the report, without assigning reasons has passed the impugned orders of dismissal. The appellate authority also without proper appreciation of the facts, the objections and the law on the point have affirmed the finding of the disciplinary authority. The petitioners have become victims of circumstances, entire enquiry has been initiated with the sole intention of holding these petitioners guilty of charges thus protecting the higher officers. As principle of natural justice is vitiated, the impugned orders requires to be quashed.

13. Per contra, Sri B.S. Shankaranaryana, Learned Counsel appearing for the Bank contended as under:

(a) M.W-1 Sri M.V. Kamath, though on the date he gave evidence before the enquiring authority was Deputy General Manager, he was Assistant General Manager on the date he commenced investigation and submitted the report. The Inquiry Officer was not subordinate to this officer. Merely because he happens to be an officer higher in rank, that by itself would not vitiate the enquiry.

(b) The copies of the two letters summoned were made available, as originals were lost. Other documents summoned are in the nature of confidential, reports, for which the Bank claimed privilege. Non-production of documents from Canfina is concerned, an attempt was made to secure the documents. But they did not co-operate and produce the documents. That apart those documents were absolutely of no assistant to the petitioners to substantiate their defence. The documents sought to be produced by the petitioner was a portion of the inspection report for which the bank had claimed privilege, and it was a xerox copy, obviously the same has been secured by illegal means and it was not a complete set of papers, as such, the Inquiry Officer was justified in declining to receive the said document.

(c) It is true that the inquiry officer has put question to the management witnesses as well as to the defence witnesses, and they are only in the nature of eliciting information for the purpose of clarifying doubts and he has the power to put questions by way of clarification.

(d) S.G. Nayak, did not examine himself. Regulation provides that when charge sheeted employee is not examined in the case, an obligation is cast upon the enquiring authority after the completion of the enquiry to put questions to such an employee bringing to his notice the evidence which is against him and seek his explanation. Questions were put to the petitioner S.G. Nayak. May be all those questions may not strictly fall within Regulation 6(17), But that does not vitiate the proceedings.

(e) Admittedly, an opportunity was given to file objections to inquiry report and the objections filed, the disciplinary authority has applied its mind, looked into the report, looked into all the objections filed by the petitioners and when he is agreeing with the report, he need not give elaborate reasons.

(f) The appellate authority has considered all the contentions raised by the petitioners and by considered order, dismissed the appeal and whatever flaw which were there, if at all, in the order of the disciplinary authority, the appellate authority has given full opportunity to the petitioners and then passed the impugned order.

(g) The material on record and the documents relied on clearly show that petitioners permitted over drawings beyond the prescribed limit, they did not record these over drawings in the manner required under the Rules, in the letter written, they have categorically admitted these aspects. Similarly, the receipt of Rs. 375 from M/s. Kantilal & Co., is not disputed. Admittedly, the said amount was neither credited to the account of Canara Bank nor Canfina. But the said amount is credited to the account of M/s. Sai Group of Companies and they were made to use the said amount. Thus, when they failed to repay the said amount, the Bank had to pay the said amount to Kantilal & Co., Thus, the interest of the Bank is exposed and prejudicially affected the interest. As held by the various judgments of the Supreme Court when once responsible officers transgress their limit, it amounts to miscounduct and dismissal from service is the appropriate punishment and Courts have no power to interfere with such punishment. Therefore, he contends that no case for interference in the impugned orders are made out.

14. From the aforesaid facts and rival contentions the points that arise for my consideration are as under:

(1) Whether the domestic enquiry conducted against the petitioners is vitiated on account of bias in as much as the Inquiry Officer was lower in rank than that of the person who conducted the investigation on whose report charge sheet was framed and who also gave evidence to substantiate the charges?

(2) Whether the Inquiry Officer has acted as Prosecutor as well as a Judge in the domestic enquiry conducted?

(3) Whether the denial of documents sought for by the petitioners to disprove the case of the management and to substantiate their defence has prejudicially affected their defence?

(4) Whether denial of an opportunity to produce documents by the petitioners in domestic enquiry has vitiated the enquiry proceedings?

(5) Whether the impugned, order passed by the Disciplinary Authority is violative of the principles of natural justice in as much as it is not a speaking order which does not disclose the application of mind of the Disciplinary Authority?

(6) Whether the findings of guilt recorded against the petitioners calls for any interference?

(7)What order?

15. Re. POINT NO. 1: M.N. Shenoy who was appointed as Inquiry Officer was working as Assistant General Manager on the date of his appointment. One M.B. Kamath investigated the complaint against the petitioners, and submitted a report. On the basis of the said report articles of charges were framed. The said report was produced as piece of evidence to substantiate the charges and M.B. Kamath was examined as MW-1. The said Kamath was working as Assistant General Manager on the date he was appointed as Investigating Officer and on the date he submitted report. But, on the date he gave evidence he has been promoted and was working as Deputy General Manager, an Officer higher in rank than the cadre of Inquiry Officer. Therefore, it was contended that the entire domestic enquiry is vitiated as the Inquiry Officer being lower in rank could not have differed from the finding recorded in the report which is the basis for information of articles of charges nor could have ignored the evidence of such an officer who was examined to substantiate the charges.

16. In support of the said contention Learned Counsel for the petitioner relies on a judgment of this Court in the case of Union of India v. Srinath, 1978(2) KLJ 66 wherein it was held that the major and captain who were members of the Court of Enquiry and the Station Commander who ordered the Court of Enquiry were ranked above the Lieutenant who conducted the departmental enquiry. They had recorded their opinion that the respondent was guilty. The evidence collected by the Court of Enquiry formed the basis of the charge framed in the disciplinary proceedings. When the higher authorities like Colonel, Major and Captain have held that the respondent was guilty of the accusation it would not be reasonable to imagine that there was not likelihood of bias against the respondent in the mind of the Lieutenant who held the Departmental enquiry. Lieutenant being a Junior Officer could not have gone against the opinion of guilt expressed by his superiors in the Army notwithstanding the evidence adduced before him.

17. While coming to the aforesaid conclusion the learned Judge reiled on the Statement of law made by Lord Denning in the case of Metropolitan Properties Co. (FGC) Ltd. v. London Rent Assessment Panel Committee where it was observed as under:

"The Court does not look at the mind of the justice himself or at the mind of the Chairman of the Tribunal, or whoever it may be, who sits in a judicial capacity. It does not look to see if there was a real likelihood that he would, or did, in fact favour one side at the expense of the other. The Court looks at the impression which would be given to other people. Even if he was as impartial as could be, nevertheless if right minded persons would think that in the circumstances, there was a real likelihood of bias on his part, then he should not sit. And if he does sit his decision cannot stand."

"The Court will not inquire whether he did in fact, favour one side unfairly. Suffice it that reasonable people might think he did. The reason is plain enough. Justice must be rooted in confidence and confidence is destroyed when right-minded people go away thinking, 'the Judge was biased".

18. A Learned Judge of this Court in the case of Amiruddin v. Divl, Supdt, South Central Rly, 1975(2) KLJ 88, observed in holding that the Inquiry Officer could not have taken an independent attitude in his conclusion, for the reason that he was subordinate to the officers who conducted inter departmental enquiry and a person who was at the beck and call of General Manager. He could not have disregarded the findings given by the GM to the effect that the petitioner was guilty of the charges. He could have done so at his own peril. The apprehension of the petitioner that his case was prejudiced or prejudged by the Inquiry Officer was reasonable and it is sufficient to quash the impugned order.

19. Following these principles, a learned Judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of M. Koteswara Rao v. APSRTC, Tirupati and Ors., 1997(II) LLJ 489 held that though the regulations do not in many words provide that a Senior Officer should not be examined by the Junior Officer in a disciplinary proceedings, but at the same time, the principles of fair-play require that there should neither be bias in the proceedings nor the real likelihood of bias is that one should not put a question to himself "Am I biased?" but he should look at the mind of the party before him. Therefore the Court does not look at the mind of the Inquiry officer who functions as a quasi-judicial authority to find out whether he is likely to be influenced by the higher officers or whether there is any likelihood of bias creeping into proceedings. But the test is that even if the Inquiry Officer is impartial, if right minded persons would think that, in the circumstances of the case, there was a real likelihood of bias on his part, then the Inquiry Officer should not function as such and if the functions and renders a decision that gets invalidated.

20. The Supreme Court in the case of S. Parthabarathy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, has observed as under:

We think that the reviewing authority must make a determination on the basis of the whole evidence before it, whether a reasonable man would in the circumstances infer that there is real likelihood of bias. The Court must look at the impression which other people have. This follows from the principle that justice must not only be done but seem to be done.

21. Therefore it is clear from the aforesaid judgments that the person appointed as an Inquiry Officer should be sufficiently independent so as not to be pressurized or influenced. When an officer in the establishment is appointed as an Inquiry Officer, in order to see that he is not influenced or pressurized the Officer who is superior to the charge-sheeted employee and the person who investigated the charges and the persons who are likely to give evidence in the said enquiry should be appointed. It is only then such an independence is assured. It is one of the fundamental requirements of law that in a quasi-judicial enquiry the principles of fair-play are to be followed, and there should not be any bias in the proceedings nor there is any likelihood of bias. If the investigation is done, report is submitted or the evidence is given by Officer who is superior in rank to that of the Inquiry Officer chances are, the said Inquiry Officer would find it difficult to ignore the opinions expressed by them or record a finding contrary to their opinion of findings. At any rate that is how reasonable people might think. What is of important is what is the impression which the other people would have in such circumstantes. Therefore, the question is not, in fact, whether the Inquiry Officer was carried away by such finding or opinion of the official Superiors and whether he favoured one side unfavourably. The Court would not look at the mind of the Inquiry Officer and the report. After such scrutiny if Court were to find that he was impartial that is of no consequence. The Court must look at the impression which other people have. The real test is if right-minded person would think that in the circumstances, there was a real likelihood of bias on his part then the Inquiry Officer should not function. Justice must be rooted in confidence and confidence is destroyed when right minded people go away thinking, "the Judge was biased". This follows from the principle that justice must not only be done but seen to have been done.

22. In the back ground of this legal position, if we look into the facts of this case MW-1 M.V. Kamath, though he was the Assistant General Manager on the date he was asked to investigate into the charges against the petitioners and when he submitted a report, by the time the enquiry was commenced he bad been promoted as Deputy General Manger. Therefore it is clear that even in the same cadre M.V. Kamath was senior to the Inquiry Officer. It is not in dispute that the entire charge sheet is based on the report submitted by the said M.V. Kamath. The said report is marked in the case as M.Ex-24. In order to prove the said report M.V. Kamath has been examined. In the said report submitted he has recorded a categorical finding about the misconduct alleged against the petitioners. In the course of his evidence he has given evidence in support of the report submitted. The Inquiry Officer has acted on the report and the evidence of MW-1 in coming to the conclusion that the charges levelled against the petitioners are proved. When once it is not disputed that the Inquiry Officer was an officer lower in the rank to that of MW-1 and when he is the person who conducted investigation and author of the report, the Inquiry Officer being lower in rank could not have ignored the said report or ignored his evidence. Similarly, he could not have recorded a finding contrary to the finding recorded in the said report as well as the evidence which he gave in the enquiry. At any rate that is what a reasonable man or a right-minded person would think. Then it is clear that the report submitted by him would be vitiated.

23. Re. POINT NO. 2: In the domestic enquiry the management appointed the Presenting Officer, and through him the management adduced evidence. All the management witnesses were examined in chief by the Presenting Officer, and all the documents on which they relied on to substantiate the charge were produced and marked in the case. Though the Inquiry Officer has the power to put questions to the witnesses the said power has to be exercised only for the purpose of getting any clarification. At any rate, when questions were put and answers are taken it should disclose that the same is obtained by the Inquiry Officer to get at truth of the matter. But the said power cannot be exercised by the Inquiry Officer to grill a witness till he gives the answer which he wants which would enable him to hold that the charges are proved.

24. The Inquiry Officer may, in the event of the charge-sheeted Officer not adducing any evidence on his behalf or not examining himself, under Regulation 6(17) generally question him on the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence for the purpose of enabling the officer employee to explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. In the instant case S.G. Nayak did not adduce any evidence in support of his defence. All that the Inquiry Officer could have done was to put questions on the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence.

25. The purpose and object of permitting the Inquiry Officer to put such questions by way of clarification is to ascertain the real question and the truth of the matter. However, under the guise of putting clarifictory questions. If the Inquiry Officer put leading questions to the witnesses of the management and records evidence which is made the basis for recording a finding of guilt against the charge-sheeted employees the enquiry would get vitiated. However, it is not possible to lay down as a rule of law what questions the Inquiry Officer is entitled to put in the domestic enquiry or how many questions he can put. The question whether Inquiry Officer has put questions by way of clarification or virtually he has done examination-in-chief or cross-examination, is dependant on the facts and circumstances of each case. The same has to be gathered by looking into the evidence, nature of questions put, the number of questions put and answers obtained and how the answers have been made use of in preparing the report. Therefore the material on record in any particular case demonstrates that the Inquiry Officer has acted as Prosecutor then such an enquiry gets vitiated. The real test is whether the departmental proceedings reflected bias on the part of the Inquiry Officer. If so, the enquiry could be said to be vitiated.

26. It is in this back ground we have to look at the conduct of the Inquiry Officer, the type of questions he has put to the witnesses of the management as well as to the charge-sheeted employees and in particular the question which he has put to S.G. Nayak who did not give any evidence in support of his defence.

27. MW-1 is the Deputy General Manager who was the author of the report on the basis of which charge-sheet was framed, was examined by the management through their Presenting Officer. He was cross-examined at length. The Inquiry Officer did not choose to put one single question to this witness by way of clarification. Similarly he has not put any questions to MW-2 one S.M. Pawaskar, M.W-3 is one K.B. Prabhu. The Presenting Officer has put 32 questions in examination-in-chief and in cross-examination the defence representative has put 42 questions and again 2 questions are put in re-examination. It is thereafter the Inquiry Officer has put one question. It is by way of clarification. 4th witness of the management is one M.B. Kamath. The Presenting Officer has put 21 questions to him in examination-in-chief. Then he has been croos-examined and nearly 18 questions have been put in the croos-examination. He was re-examined and only one question was put in re-examination. Thereafter, starts the questioning by the Inquiry Officer to the witness, he has put in all 27 questions to the said witness. 1 have gone through these questions and answers obtained. I am satisfied that it cannot be said that, these questions were put with the intention of getting any clarification from such witnesses. In fact, a number of leading questions are put. The opening words of those questions are, "I am putting it to you". A reading of the entire questions put by the Inquiry Officer shows that the witness was grilled, till he was able to get the answer which he wanted to get from the witness which is made the basis for finding in the report. The 5th witness examined on behalf of the management was one Yeshwant Ganvir. To him no questions were put by the inquiry Officer.

28. On defence side witnesses, one Shyamlal Kishnani was examined as DW-1, 24 questions were put in examination-in-chief and the Presenting Officer cross-examined him by putting about 41 questions. Only one question was put in the re-examination and only two questions were put by the Inquiry Officer which cannot be found fault with. Two other witnesses were examined as DW-2 and DW-3. They were not subjected to any questions by the Inquiry Officer. However, DW-4 is the petitioner in one of the writ petitions. 11 questions were put in examination-in-chief and 70 questions were put in cross-examination. There was no questions put in re-examination and thereafter starts questioning by the Inquiry Officer. 34 questions were put by the Inquiry Officer and DW-4 is none other than a charge-sheeted employee, similarly other charge sheeted employee did not adduce his evidence. But he has been questioned by the Inquiry Officer, he has put in all 34 questions and answers are obtained. A reading of those questions make it abundantly clear that the Inquiry Officer was not putting questions regarding the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence for the purpose of enabling the officer-employee to explain in the circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. On the contrary he was cross examining him and eliciting answers to substantiate the charge levelled against him. Therefore this conduct of the Inquiry Officer putting questions to the management witnesses as well as to the defence witnesses and eliciting answeres not by way of clarification but by way of information or evidence to substantiate the charges levelled against him clearly demonstrates that he was not acting fairly as he was expected to do, more so, when a competent Presenting Officer was representing the management, he was bent upon recording a finding of guilt against the charge-sheeted employees and to enable him to do so he was eliciting answers by putting leading questions and cross examining the witnesses who deposed before him. It clearly dicloses that he was acting as a Prosecutor in the case notwithstanding a Prosecutor was very much present through out the enquiry. Thus the enquiry conducted by him in vitiated on account of bias.

29. Re. POINT NO. 3 : The petitioners were called upon by the Inquiry Officer to state whether they need any documents to substantiate their defence. In reply they stated that they will go through the documents submitted by the management and thereafter they would make a request for production of the documents. The said request was granted. Accordingly, they requested for documents and meticulously they prepared two lists setting out the description of the documents, the date of the documents, and it whose custody those documents are. In addition to those two lists, petitioner P.L. Prabhu also sought for five documents. In pursuance of the said request some documents were supplied. 38 documents were not supplied.

30. In the list prepared calling for documents the petitioners have categorically stated that the documents-1 to 39 mentioned in the first list are required to rebut charges and to establish transactions of this nature are outside the purview of the RBI direction and are handled in different manner as per the directions of the Board. In so far as documents mentioned in the second list were concerned it was stated that they are relevant to the other charges other than those mentioned in the earlier letter. In so far as five documents sought for by Prabhu is concerned it was stated that they were required in respect of the allegations in respect of RBI directives and misappropriation of funds and to establish that these transactions are outside the purview of the RBI directions and appropriation of funds have been made as per directions with approval of the Board. Therefore it is clear, at the time of summoning these documents at the earliest point of time the petitioners disclosed the reasons why they need the documents.

31. In the course of enquiry when charge-sheeted employees brought to the notice of the Enquiring Authority that those documents such as review reports and notes which they have sought for are not produced and they are very vital in nature and most relevant to the charges alleged against them and that in the absence of those documents justice would suffer the Presenting Officer defended the action of the bank stating that they are treated as privileged documents because the management is of the opinion that the above documents are not directly relevant to the case and that the management also does not went to derive benefit and depend upon those documents for proving the charges. Petitioners also pointed out that those documents are not privilege documents and they ought to be produced to substantiate the defence. Their objection and request were rejected by the Enquiring Authority on the ground that once bank claims privilege, the documents cannot be provided. Petitioners protested to the said finding of the Enquiring Authority and without prejudice to their protest they agreed to participate in the proceedings. Thereafter petitioners contended that they have been charges for alleged conversion with regard to the fund placed with the bank by one of their clients. To disprove the above allegation they have requested the statement of accounts in the Books of Canfina and Canbank Mutual Fund, Bombay, in respect of intercorporate funds handled by Mandvi branch between November 1986 to July 1989 and those documents are not produced. The Presenting Officer submitted that the above custodians of documents had not supplied the above vital documents since they are only subisdiary companies the bank is not able to force them to give such documents. In fact he submitted that he has made efforts by writing to them and also making personal contacts, but still those documents are not made available. The Inquiry Officer upheld their objections and recorded a finding that as those documents have to come from subsidiaries of the bank since they were not made available despite request made by the Presenting Officer they will not be able to compel them to make available the records. Therefore, liberty was reserved to obtain the same. Petitioners wanted the originals of the letter dated 20.6.88, 10.9.88 and 16.5.91 which were all referred to in the charge-sheet. According to them, normally such letters seeking ratifications of the transgressions permitted by the branches addressed to the Circle Office are sent in circulation to the various Executives of the Circle office for their observation and approval. They wanted to rely on the observations and notes made by the higher officials to substantiate their defence, those letters contain their comments and decision on their remarks. The reply was that in spite of best efforts they could not trace the records but copies of the said letters are made available to the petitioners. The Inquiry Officer upheld the objections and held that as copies are made available and the originals are lost nothing more could be done. The aforesaid orders are passed in the order sheet dated 2.1.92 by the Inquiry Officer clearly demonstrates that they needed those documents to dispute the charges levelled against them as well as to substantiate their defence.

32. It is to be seen that the petitioners sought for those documents at the earliest point of time. They have to categorical terms in writing made known the relevancy of those documents even before summonning them. The custodian of those documents cannot decide the relevancy of those documents. Those documents which are in the nature of reports were not produced on the ground of privilege. The notes of the order sheet discloses that as the bank felt that those documents are not relevant to the case and they also do not want to derive any benefits from the documents, they are claiming privilege and with-holding those documents. It is not for the bank to decide relevancy of the said documents. If they do not want to rely on those documents it is not a reason to deny the documents for if they are produced it would be helpful to the petitioners either to demolish the evidence of the management or to substantiate their defence. On those reasons, they cannot claim privilege. Production of documents should be the rule. Ultimately, the purpose of domestic enquiry is to find out the truth and if these charges are proved his right of living is taken away as a finding of guilt may result in deprivation of employment, it is not an absolute right. But if documents are to be with-held it must be for good reasons. The documents summoned by them are in the nature of review reports and notes which would indicate the transaction which those branches are carrying on, manner in which those transactions are carried on and it would give an indication whether the irregularities which were mentioned against the petitioners have taken plave for the first time or it is a part of the very same transaction for over a period of more than three years. Without anybody looking into those documents it cannot be said whether it is relevant to prove the charges or defence of the respondents. Absolutely no material is placed or even suggested how those documents are against either public interest or against the interest of the bank before a privilege could be claimed. The consequence of exposure of the contents of those documents at least have to be made known to the Inquiry Officer or at any rate when the matter is before court, the court should be taken into confidence and those documents should be shown to the Court in order to uphold the objections regarding the privilege claimed. In the absence of any of these things it is not open to the bank to claim privilege and thus shut out vital evidence in the case which the charge-sheeted employees believe if produced would have demolished the case of the management and supported the defence.

33. Other documents were denied to the petitioners on the ground that they are not in the custody of those documents. They are in the custody of subsidiaries over whom they have no control. When an effort is made to get those documents from the subsidiaries they have not obliged. It was pointed out, that in view of the admission contained in the letters written by Sri S.G. Nayak. Canfina has nothing to do with the entrustment of Rs. 375 lakhs to these petitioners and therefore the said documents were neither relevant nor necessary for deciding the charges levelled against them, no prejudice has been caused by non-production of those documents. The material on record and in particular the evidence shows that the transaction in question has not been in the regular course of the banking transactions. It was done as a part of port-folio management. In the course of portfolio management, admittedly, transaction is between the bank and the canfina. It is to demostrate these aspects when these transactions are beyond the normal banking transactions and for over a period or three years such transactions have taken place between the bank and the Canfina the petitioners wanted the documents from the Canfina. Canfina is not a total stranger. It is subsidiary of Canara Bank. Admittedly, an effort was made according to them to get those documents. They have not produced those documents. In the order sheet the Inquiry Officer records that his request to get documents also did not yield any result. Absolutely there is nothing on record to show that the Inquiry Officer called upon the Canfina to produce those documents. In fact, regulation empower the Inquiry Officer to summon those documents. The very fact that the bank made an attempt to get the documents or even the Inquiry Officer made any attempt to get the documents shows that those documents were relevant for the defence of the petitioners. Merely because they did not oblige, that is not reason to deny the petitioners of those documents which are relevant in disproving the case against them and to substantiate their defence.

34. It is the specific case of the petitioners that they have written letters to the higher authorities informing them about the over-drawings and seeking their approval. In fact, the charge-sheet refers to those letters written by the petitioners to the higher authorities. Petitioners wanted originals of those letters summoned before the Inquiry Officer to show that the higher authorities have considered the contentions of the said letters and in fact they approved the transactions made by the petitioners. According to them if the notings made in the originals are looked into it would substantiate their case and disprove the case of the management. The explanation offered for not producing those documents is that originals are not available. When in the charge-sheet and in the investigation report, those letters finds a place, if the management wants to establish those charges they have to produce original documents. Merely because they are the documents sent by the petitioners, by producing copy of the same, originals can be denied. That is the letter by which the petitioners brought to the notice of the higher authorities about the transaction which they have done and sought for approval and if their case is to be believed, such approval was granted and necessary notings have been made in the original letters. It is only thereafter to shield themselves these enquiry proceedings are initiated against the subordinate officials, the said original letters are with-held saying that they are not available. Absolutely no material is placed before the court to show what happened to these documents, when it came to be missing and the effort in tracing the same. Whatever may be the reason, if there are any notings in the said letter which go to show that higher authorities approved the transactions then the entire case of the management would be defeated. Such as opportunity is lost by non-production of the original documents.

35. The documents which are denied to the petitioner on the aforesaid ground makes it abundantly clear that there is an attempt to keep away the documents which probably would have supported the defence. The explanation given for non-production of those documents is not convincing and very difficult to believe. There is a clear attempt to deny these vital documentary evidence to the petitioners to defend their case. Therefore, this act of the management in denying these documents to the petitioners in violative to the principles of natural justice.

36. Re: POINT NO. 4: Petitioner Sri P.L. Prabhu, in the course of his evidence, wanted to produce excerptions from the inspection report of 1988 of Mandvi Branch, during which he was working at that Branch. The said inspection report was sought to be produced by him as the defence documents, since the management did not produce the said document and claimed privilege. In the course of his evidence he wanted to produce a xerox copy of the said inspection report sheet No. 64-65(5). The production of the said document was objected to by the presenting officer on the ground that the said documents is incomplete. For that, Sri P.L. Prabhu contended that the portion of the inspection report, now sought to be brought on record, deals with the observation of the inspecting officials of M/s Sai Oversees International sanction of credit limits to this firm as the same is the main allegation in the charge sheet. It was contended that the observations are complete and are more vital to disprove the allegations in the charge sheet and also the evidence of management witness made in the enquiry. He has also made it clear that they have not objection for the presenting officer bringing on any more observation contained in the inspection report to the notice of the enquiring authority. The Inquiry Officer has recorded at pages 97, 98, and 99 what exactly transpired, what the contention of the rival parties, the allegations and counter allegations made by them and ultimately, the Inquiry Officer held, without production of full extract of all the relevant papers relating thereto, the same will also be incomplete and gives room for production of other documents, which are already treated as privilege documents. He also felt that production of the same, at this stage, will only delay the process of enquiry. For the aforesaid reasons, he did not permit the said documents to be taken on record at that stage.

37. Therefore, it is clear, the documents which are required and relevant for the purpose of the defence when they were summoned at the earliest point of time, they were refused to be produced by the Bank, claiming privilege. In the course of the evidence, the delinquent employee managed to secure a portion of the report and wanted to produce the same. The very management, which had claimed privilege, opposed the said document, on the ground that the documents sought to be produced is not complete, and if permitted to be produced that would result in delay in disposal of the case. A document, which is of vital importance to the defence cannot be shut out from the enquiry. If the writings in those reports negative the claim of the Bank and support the defence of the delinquent employee, it is a piece of evidence, which ought to have been allowed to come on record, notwithstanding the technical objections such as original is not produced, what is sought to be produced is only a copy and that too is not complete. A domestic enquiry is not an enquiry conducted in a court. It is well settled that strict rules of evidence is not applicable. Especially the documents, which are in possession of the parties are to be permitted to be produced in the said enquiry assuming that the other side has come into possession of the document in a questionable manner. After allowing the document to come on record considering the objections, the enquiring authority could have given a finding at the time of preparing the report, whether those documents are admissible or not, whether those documents are relevant or not, and whether those documents are proved and can be looked into for deciding the charges one way or the other. Shutting out the evidence even at the stage of production is not contemplated in a domestic enquiry. Even in judicial proceedings, the documents are permitted to be produced subject to objections to be considered at the time of final hearing. That is not the stage to consider the relevancy of the document. In that view of the matter, it is yet another instance of the enquiry being vitiated for not following the principles of natural justice, i.e., preventing the documents on which the defence relies, being produced into the enquiry.

38. Re: Point No. 5: After the enquiry report was prepared, the Inquiry Officer has submitted the report to the disciplinary authority. On receipt of the said report, the disciplinary authority has issued second show-cause notice to the petitioner, enclosing a copy of the said report and calling upon him to show cause as to why the said finding in the report should not be accepted. On receipt of the said second show-cause notice, the petitioner has filed a detailed statement of objections pointing out the infirmities in the domestic enquiry, how the principles of natural justice have been violated, how the conduct of the Inquiry Officer is biased. The disciplinary authority, on consideration of the said submissions made by the petitioner, has passed the impugned order concurring with the finding of the enquiry authority and dismissing the petitioner from service.

39. It is contended that a reading of the order of dismissal makes it clear that there is no application of mind by the disciplinary authority either to the report submitted by the Inquiry Officer or to the objections filed by the petitioner and, therefore, in the absence of any reasons being given for concurring with the findings of the enquiring authorities, the impugned order is not a speaking order which violate the principles of natural justice and, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.

40. In support of his contention, the Learned Counsel for petitioner, relied on a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of G.V. Ashwathanarayana v. Central Bank of India, By Chairman, Bombay, ILR 2003 Kar 3066, Wherein it has been held that, it is now well settled that where an authority makes an order in exercise of quasi-judicial functions or an order which has the effect of affecting civil rights of a person and which action is liable to be reviewed by Constitutional Courts, as provided under the Constitution, it must record the reasons in support of the order it makes. The Supreme Court, in the case of Siemens Eng. and Mfg. Co. of India Limited v. Union of India, has held that the rule requiring reasons in support of an order is, like the principle of audi alteram partem, a basic principle of natural justice which must inform every quasi-judicial process and this rule must be observed in its proper spirit and mere pretence of compliance with it would not satisfy the requirements of law. Again, the Supreme Court, in the case of Union of India v. K.L. Kapoor, and in the case Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, has held that it hardly requires any emphasis that compulsion of disclosure of reasons guarantees consideration. The condition to give reasons introduced clarity and excludes or at any rate minimizes arbitrariness; it gives satisfaction to the other party against whom the order is made; and it also enables an appellate or supervisory or reviewing Court to keep the Tribunals and authority within bounds. Therefore, a reasonal order is always a desirable condition of judicial disposal or a disposal which is required to be done judiciously.

41. As found in the judgment in the case of Cyril Lasrado v. Juliana Maria Lasrado, ILR 2004 Kar 4822, where it has been held that reasons are live links between the mind of the decision-taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at, reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx" it can by its silence render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before Court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words a speaking out.

42. As against this judgment, the Learned Counsel for respondents relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of G.M. (Personnel Wing), Canara Bank v. Sri M. Raja Rao, JT 2001 (Suppl.1) SC 608, where it was held that the order of the disciplinary authority unequivocally indicates that he has gone into the findings of the Enquiring Authority and agreed with the same, When a Disciplinary Authority agrees with the findings and conclusions of the Enquiring Authority, it is not necessary in law to give any detailed reasons as to why he intends to agree with the findings of the Enquiring Authority.

43. The Learned Counsel for respondents also relied on an unreported Division Bench judgment dated 30.7.2004, delivered in M.S. Satyanarayan v. The Canara Bank, Writ Appeal Nos. 68-70/2000 (S-RES), where it was held that it is well settled that if the disciplinary authority agrees with the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer. It need not give separate reasons for its decision unless the statutory requirement directs otherwise. As in that case, Regulations did not direct that the disciplinary authority should give reasons, even where it agrees with the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer, it was held that the order is not vitiated for not giving reasons.

44. Therefore, it is clear from the aforesaid judgment that when a disciplinary authority, on receipt of the report of the enquiring authority holding the delinquent employee guilty of the charges levelled against him, he is expected to give a show-cause notice enclosing a copy of the report. When the delinquent employee gives his submissions or objections to the said report, he is bound to consider the enquiry report, the entire material collected during the enquiry, and then look into the objections filed by the delinquent employees, and then make up his mind agreeing or disagreeing with the finding of the enquiring authority. If the disciplinary authority agrees with the findings of the enquiring authority, it need not give detailed reasons as to why he intends to agree with the findings of the enquiring authority. But, he is bound to give reasons, in order to show his application of mind to the material which was before him coupled with the objections of the delinquent employee has urged. How the disciplinary authority should word his order, how much reasons should be given in the said order language which should be employed in the said order, cannot be laid down as a proposition of law. But, the true test is when the authority which is vested with the power to review the said order looks into the said order, that authority should be satisfied that the disciplinary authority had applied its mind to the material before him before the order was passed. Therefore, in the order of the disciplinary authority, there must be sufficient indication to show the application of mind by the disciplinary authority before it records its findings. It is not the law that no reasons be given. The law is detailed reasons need not be given. Separate reasons need not be given. But, reasons must be given. Giving reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration. Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live-links between the mind of the decision taker to the controversy in question and the decision, or conclusions arrived at. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. Right to reasons is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system. Reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter dealt with, so that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him.

45. In this background, when the impugned order is looked into, there is no indication to show that the disciplinary authority had applied its mind to the material on record, to the objections filed by the delinquent employee, before recording a finding agreeing with the findings of the Inquiry Officers. Therefore, as held by the Supreme Court, the impugned order is in violation of principles of natural justice as it does not speak out and give any reasons for agreeing with the finding of the Inquiry Officer.

46. In view of the findings recorded by me, the cumulative effect of all these would be that the enquiry conducted is vitiated, the Inquiry Officer was biased, the delinquent employee did not have reasonable opportunity of disproving the case of the management and proving his defence, the Inquiry Officer also has acted as a prosecutor in the case, the delinquent employee did not have opportunity to adduce evidence which was in his possession, which was wrongly rejected from being produced in the enquiry, and the disciplinary authority has not assigned any reasons for coming to the conclusion that the finding of guilt is established as against the petitioner. When once a domestic enquiry is held to be not fair and proper, vitiated on account of not following the principles of natural justice, the report submitted by the Inquiry Officer and the order passed by the disciplinary authority acting on the said report would get vitiated. Therefore, the question of going into the merits of the case would not arise in those circumstances.

47. In that view of the matter, the impugned orders passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority are liable to be quashed. Hence, I pass the following order:

1) Rule is made absolute.

2) The impugned orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority are hereby quashed.

3) Liberty is reserved to the respondents to hold an enquiry in respect of the charges levelled against the petitioner, after following the principles of natural justice, after making available the documents sought for by the petitioner in this case, and permitting the petitioner to produce the documents which he wants to produce, and after affording reasonable opportunity to either parties to cross-examine the witnesses in those documents.

4) The enquiry was initiated in the year 1990. The management has examined five witnesses and the defence has examined one witness. In the event of the parties unable to get the witnesses, who are already examined, the Inquiry Officer may exclude that portion of the evidence recorded in the enquiry by way of questions put by the Inquiry Officer, and act on the evidence, which is already recorded in the enquiry. The parties are at liberty to adduce evidence and on those points, they are at liberty to cross-examine the witnesses of either side. By way of clarification, it is made clear that the entire evidence containing the questions put by the Inquiry Officer to M.W.4 M.B. Kamath and the charge-sheeted officers be specifically excluded.

5) While appointing an Inquiry Officer, the Bank shall take care to see that an officer, who is not superior in rank to that of M.W. 1 M.V. Kamath is appointed.

48. It is submitted that both the petitioners have already retired from service after reaching the age of superannuation. Under these circumstances, in the event of the management chooses to hold an enquiry those parties, the said enquiry shall be completed within a period of one year from the date of receipt of the copy of the order. It is left to the discretion of the management to decide how this period between the date of dismissal and the date of superrannuation should be treated and to what relief the petitioners are entitled.

49. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court