SUHAS BANDOPANT DAMDHEREversusTHE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY AND OTHERS

2026:BHC-AUG:24254-DB
                                                 1                    WP-561-25.odt




                        IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                   BENCH AT AURANGABAD


                                 WRIT PETITION NO.561 OF 2025

                Mr. Suhas Bandopant Damdhere,
                Age 35 years, Occu. Nil,
                R/o. Shantiniketan Colony, Gangakhed Road,
                Opposite S. T. Workshop, Parbhani
                PIN 431 401 H.O. Mobile No.97659363
                [email protected]
                Presently Residing at
                Flat No.28, M3 Building, 1st Floor,
                Aurangabad-Pune Highway,
                Opp. CIDCO Mahanagar-2,
                Behind Police Colony, Mahada Colony,
                Tisgaon, Chh. Sambhajinagar,
                Aurangabad – 413 136                         ..   Petitioner

                             Versus

                1.      The Union of India
                        Through its Secretary,
                        Ministry of Finance Department,
                        New Delhi

                2.      The Chairman of Board of Directors
                        and Disciplinary Authority
                        Maharashtra Gramin Bank,
                        Having its Head office at
                        Plot No. 42, Gut No.33 (Part),
                        Village Golwadi, Growth Centre
                        Waluj Mahanagar-IV, CIDCO,
                        Aurangabad

                3.      Maharashtra Gramin Bank,
                        through its Chairman
                        Having its Head Office at
                        Plot No.42, Gut No.33 (Part),
                        Village Golwadi, Growth Centre
                        Waluj Mahanagar-IV, CIDCO,
                        Aurangabad                           ..   Respondents

                Petitioner, Mr. Suhas Bandopant Damdhere, party-in-person;
                Mr. Krushna S. Solanke, Advocate for Respondent No.1;
                Mr. Pradeep Shahane, Advocate for Respondent No.2 and 3;
                                     2                           WP-561-25.odt




                             CORAM :         SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI
                                                      AND
                                             SACHIN S. DESHMUKH, JJ.

                             RESERVED ON              :    16.06.2026
                             PRONOUNCED ON :               22.06.2026


JUDGMENT:-



1.    Rule.     Rule made returnable forthwith. By consent, the

petition is taken for final hearing at the stage of admission.


2.    The petitioner has approached this Court by way of the

present writ petition seeking the following reliefs.

     “(A)     By issuing appropriate writ, order or direction in
              the like nature, it may kindly be hold and
              declare that the final punishment order dated
              24-11-2023        confirming      the       punishment
              awarded by Disciplinary Authority dated 28-07-
              2023 as illegal, null and void.

     (B)      By issuing appropriate writ, order or direction in
              the like nature, final punishment order dated
              24-11-2023 passed by the Board of Director,
              Maharashtra Gramin Bank confirming the final
              punishment imposed/awarded by Disciplinary
              Authority   and    Chairman     dated       28-07-2023
              thereby “Compulsory retirement from service
              which shall not be a disqualification for further
              employment”, may kindly be quashed and set
              aside and reinstate the petitioner in service
                            3                              WP-561-25.odt



      which shall not be a disqualification for further
      employment”, may kindly be quashed and set
      aside and reinstate the petitioner in service
      with full back wages.

(C)   By issuing appropriate writ, order or direction in
      the like nature, the suspension order dated
      10-11-2021 may kindly be quashed and set
      aside.

(D)   By issuing appropriate writ, order or direction in
      the like nature, respondents are directed to
      reimburse / pay the PLI amount, difference
      amount of subsistence allowance from 10-11-
      2021 to 28-07-2023 and back wages from 28-
      07-2023 till the final disposal of this WP with
      12% interest.     As a part of interim relief
      respondents are directed to reimburse all the
      terminal benefits, NPS balance, and continue
      subsistence allowance from 28-07-2023 and all
      other applicable financial benefits.

(E)   By   issuing   appropriate   order     or    direction,
      respondents are directed to reinstate Petitioner
      in service with due promotion (in Scale II officer
      cadre)   in    PwBD   category   and        period   of
      suspension and period after 28-07-2023 be
      treated as on duty and related all salary
      increments be released from F.Y. 2020-21. All
      the financial contributions including NPS and all
      Leaves should be credited to Petitioner’s A/cs
      applicable from 10-11-2021.
                                 4                          WP-561-25.odt



     (F)    This Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct the
            respondents to pay suitable compensation for
            mental pain, agony and defamation and for
            that purpose issue necessary order or allow
            petitioner to file related civil suits and criminal
            cases with appropriate Courts and agencies for
            caused damages.”



3.   (I) The petitioner joined the services of respondent No.3-

Bank as an Assistant Manager (Probationary Officer). Upon

successful completion of the probation period, his services came

to be confirmed with effect from the year 2017.                   In the

interregnum, the petitioner served at several places with the

respondent-bank.


     (II)   The petitioner was subsequently served with charge-

sheets alleging irregularities in discharge of his duties. The

principal charge levelled against the petitioner pertains to the

implementation of the Mahatma Jyotirao Phule Shetkari Karjmukti

Yojana, 2019 (MJPSKY), under which certain loan accounts were

allegedly recommended and processed as eligible for debt waiver

while the petitioner was working at Hatta Branch. It was alleged

that such recommendations were made contrary to the applicable

guidelines. At the relevant time, the petitioner was serving as

Assistant Manager, whereas one Shri R.M. Pathan was the Branch

Manager of the said branch.
                                       5                                 WP-561-25.odt




       (III)   Coupled with the aforesaid charge, the petitioner was

also   charged        with   sanctioning     certain         loan accounts     while

functioning      as    Branch    Manager          at   Wagholi    Branch,     which

subsequently became irregular and unrecoverable, allegedly

resulting      in a financial exposure of Rs.49.78                  lakh     to the

respondent-Bank.          Upon    receipt     of       the    charge-sheets      and

statement of imputations, the petitioner submitted his detailed

explanation denying the allegations levelled against him.


       (IV)    Pending the disciplinary proceedings, the petitioner

was placed under suspension and an Inquiry Officer came to be

appointed to conduct the departmental inquiry.                     The petitioner

requested the respondent-Bank to furnish the material documents

forming the basis of the charges, including the inspection and

investigation reports, relevant records relied upon by the Inquiry

Officer    and    other      documents      for    effectively     defending     the

proceedings.      According      to   the    petitioner,        though     repeated

requests were made, those documents were not made available.


       (V)     The     departmental      inquiry       nevertheless      proceeded

further. The petitioner also raised objections regarding the conduct

of the inquiry and alleged non-compliance with the applicable

vigilance guidelines and principles of natural justice. Upon

conclusion of the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted report.

Acting upon the findings recorded in the inquiry report, the
                                  6                           WP-561-25.odt



disciplinary authority imposed the major penalty of compulsory

retirement from service by order dated 28.07.2023. The appeal

preferred by the petitioner came to be dismissed by the appellate

authority by order dated 24.11.2023.


      (VI)   It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the petitioner has

invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court challenging the orders

passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority.


4.    The    petitioner   appearing   in   person   submits    that   the

disciplinary proceedings culminating in the impugned orders are

vitiated by gross procedural irregularities and violations of the

principles of natural justice. According to him, the charges levelled

against him are unfounded and the action initiated by the

respondent-Bank is a colourable exercise of power undertaken with

a predetermined intent to impose a major penalty. It is contended

that the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer are unsupported

by the material available on record.


5.    The petitioner further submits that repeated requests were

made seeking the material forming the basis of the charges

levelled. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the communication

dated 01.12.2021 addressed to the respondent-Bank wherein the

petitioner sought particulars regarding the alleged irregularities

referred to in Charge and the basis on which the respondents

attributed a loss of Rs.49.78 Lakh to the Bank. According to the
                                  7                            WP-561-25.odt



petitioner, no response was furnished to the said communication.

The petitioner would submit that during the course of the inquiry

proceedings    although   consistently    requested    inspection      and

supply of the documents relied upon by the disciplinary authority,

including the reports and records constituting the foundation of

the charges.


6.   The petitioner further submits that the petitioner addressed

a detailed complaint to Respondent No.2 on 18.11.2022 alleging

procedural irregularities in the conduct of the inquiry and

thereafter   submitted    a   complaint   to   the   Central    Vigilance

Commission raising similar grievances. The petitioner also sought

substitution of the Inquiry Officer on the ground that the

proceedings were not conducted fairly.


7.   It is further submitted that the petitioner was placed under

suspension for an unduly prolonged period and the mandatory

requirements regulating the review of suspension were not

adhered to. According to the petitioner, the procedure prescribed

under the service regulations while conducting the inquiry and

before imposing a major penalty was not followed. The petitioner

would contend that the disciplinary authority proceeded on the

basis of inquiry report without ensuring compliance with the

safeguards contemplated under the regulations and without

granting a fair and effective opportunity of hearing. It is further
                                    8                           WP-561-25.odt



contended that the appellate authority failed to independently

examine the grievances raised by the petitioner and mechanically

affirmed the order of punishment. Accordingly, prayed to allow the

petition.


8.     In support of his submission, the petitioner has placed

reliance on the following judgments;

 (1) State of U.P. verses Salig Ram Sharma, AIR 1960 All
      543;
 (2) State of U.P. versus Mohd. Sharif, AIR 1982 SC 937;
 (3) Managing Director, E.C.I.L., Hyderabad versus B.
      Karunakar (II), MANU/SC/1038/1996;
 (4) Moni Shankar v. Union of India (2008) 3 SCC 484;
 (5) Anil Gilurker versus Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin
      Bank, (2011) 14 SCC 379.

 1




9.    In the wake of the aforesaid precedents, the petitioner

contends     that   the   charges   levelled   against   lack   precision,

specificity, and clarity. It is a settled principle of law that vague,

ambiguous and unfounded charges severely deprive an employee

of a reasonable and effective opportunity to defend themselves,

thereby violating the principles of natural justice. In light of the

aforementioned precedents, the petitioner contends that the

present enquiry proceedings are entirely vitiated.


10.   Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for respondent

No.2 supported the action of the disciplinary authority in imposing

the penalty. He submitted that the disciplinary proceedings were
                                 9                         WP-561-25.odt



conducted in accordance with the applicable rules and that the

findings recorded by the competent authority do not warrant

interference.


11.     It is further submitted that the Petitioner having accepted

the consequential monetary benefits, it is not open for the

Petitioner to question the orders and consequential punishments.

In support of the submissions, reliance has been placed upon the

following judgments;

      (1)   State of Punjab versus Krishna Nivas, 1997 AIR SC
            2349;


      (2)   Chairman       and   Managing      Director       United
            Commercial Bank and others versus PC Kakkar, AIR
            2003 SC 1571;
      (3)   State   Bank    of   Bikaner    and   Jaipur      versus
            Nemichand Nalvaiyya, AIR 2011 SC 1931;
      (4)   Deputy Commissioner KVS and others versus JV
            Hussain, AIR 2014 SC 766;
      (5)   State of Punjab and others versus Dhanjeetsingh
            Sandhu, AIR 2014 SC 3004;
      (6)   Union of India v. Gunashekharan, AIR 2015 SC 545;
      (7)   State Bank of Patial versus General Secretary Staff
            Union and others, 2016 III CLR 1005 (SC);
      (8)   Sadiq Shafiq Quershi versus MD and CEO Union
            Bank of India and others, 2022 SCC OnLine Bom
            651;
      (9)   United Bank of India versus Bachchan Prasad Lall,
            AIR 2022 SC 943;
                                   10                         WP-561-25.odt



      (10) State Bank of India and another versus K. S.
           Vishwanath, AIR 2022 SC 2531;
      (11) Indian     Overseas     Bank    versus    Omprakash        Lal
           Shrivastav, AIR OnLine 2022 SC 47;


12.     Upon hearing the petitioner appearing in person and the

learned counsel appearing for the respondent, the following facts

emerge from the record. The petitioner was placed under

suspension     vide   order   dated     10.11.2021   and   thereafter    a

chargesheet was served upon him. The petitioner sought supply of

the documents relied upon by the department to enable him to

defend the disciplinary proceedings; however, according to him,

despite    repeated    requests,   the    same   were   not   furnished.

Subsequently, an Inquiry Officer came to be appointed.


13.     During the pendency of the inquiry, the petitioner raised

objections regarding the manner in which the proceedings were

conducted and approached the Central Vigilance Commission. The

petitioner also sought substitution of the Inquiry Officer vide

application dated 14.12.2022, which request came to be rejected.

The petitioner thereafter, in wake of the regulations, sought

revocation of suspension and release of subsistence allowance,

however, the said requests were not accepted.


14.     The inquiry, thereafter, proceeded further and culminated in

the inquiry report. Upon receipt of the inquiry report, the
                                 11                         WP-561-25.odt



disciplinary   authority,   proposed   imposition   of   penalty.   The

petitioner submitted his response objecting to the findings

rendered by the Inquiry Officer and denial of effective opportunity

during the inquiry proceedings and also requested to grant

reasonable time to put forth defense. However, the disciplinary

authority proceeded to impose the major penalty of compulsory

retirement. The statutory appeal preferred by the petitioner was

also dismissed by the appellate authority/Board of Directors,

affirming the order of punishment.


15.   At this stage, reference to Regulation 39 of the Maharashtra

Gramin Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2010

(hereinafter referred to as the “Service Regulations”) would be

apposite. The said regulation requires the disciplinary authority to

afford a reasonable opportunity to the delinquent employee to

submit his explanation and defend himself before taking a final

decision on the charges. The grievance of the petitioner is that

such opportunity, as contemplated under the Service Regulations,

was not effectively extended to him.


16.   Similarly, Regulation 46 of the Service Regulations provides

for payment of subsistence allowance to an employee during the

period of suspension. The petitioner contends that despite

repeated requests, the subsistence allowance payable under the

said provision was not paid, which seriously prejudiced his ability
                                12                             WP-561-25.odt



to effectively participate in the disciplinary proceedings and

defend himself. Thus, regardless of request, the respondents were

under an obligation to provide the relevant material on which the

charges were framed in the wake of the regime of service

regulations.


17.   Further, it would be appropriate to make a reference to the

judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Managing

Director, E.C.I.L., Hyderabad versus B. Karunakar (supra)

wherein the Constitution Bench, while considering the scope of

reasonable opportunity available to a delinquent employee in

disciplinary proceedings, examined the fundamental question as to

whether the report submitted by the Inquiry Officer is required to

be furnished to the delinquent employee to enable him to make an

effective representation before the disciplinary authority arrives at

its conclusion regarding the charges and the punishment, if any, to

be imposed. In that context, the Bench framed certain incidental

questions for consideration in paragraph No.2 of the judgment,

which are reproduced hereinbelow:

      “2. The basic question of law which arises in these
      matters   is   whether   the    report   of   the   Inquiry
      Officer/authority   who/which    is   appointed     by    the
      disciplinary authority to hold an inquiry into the
      charges against the delinquent employee is required
      to be furnished to the employee to enable him to make
      proper representation to the disciplinary authority
                                 13                        WP-561-25.odt



      before such authority arrives at its own finding with
      regard to the guilt or otherwise of the employee and
      the punishment, if any, to be awarded to him. This
      question in turn gives rise to the following incidental
      questions:

      (i) Whether the report should be furnished to the
      employee even when the statutory rules laying down
      the procedure for holding the disciplinary inquiry are
      silent on the subject or are against it?

      (ii) Whether the report of the Inquiry Officer is required
      to be furnished to the delinquent employee even when
      the punishment imposed is other than the major
      punishment of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank?

      (iii) Whether the obligation to furnish the report is only
      when the employee asks for the same or whether it
      exists even otherwise?

      (iv) Whether the law laid down in Mohd. Ramzan
      Khan's case (AIR 1991 SC 471) (supra) will apply to all
      establishments-Government       and    non-Government,
      public and private sector undertakings?


18.   Upon consideration of the aforesaid questions, the Hon’ble

Supreme Court answered the same in paragraph No.30 of the

judgment and laid down the principles governing the requirement

of furnishing the inquiry report to the delinquent employee and the

consequences arising from denial of such opportunity. The relevant

portion of the judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:
                               14                             WP-561-25.odt



“30. Hence the incidental questions raised above may
be answered as follows:
(i) Since the denial of the report of the Inquiry Officer is
a denial of reasonable opportunity and a breach of the
principles of natural justice, it follows that the statutory
rules, if any, which deny the report to the employee are
against the principles of natural justice and, therefore,
invalid. The delinquent employee will, therefore, be
entitled to a copy of the report even if the statutory
rules do not permit the furnishing of the report or are
silent on the subject.


(ii) The relevant portion of Article 311(2) of the
Constitution is as follows:
(2) No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or
removed or reduced in rank except after an enquiry in
which he has been informed of the charges against him
and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in
respect of those charges.: Thus the Article makes it
obligatory to hold an inquiry before the employee is
dismissed or removed or reduced in rank. The Article,
however, cannot be construed to mean that it prevents
or prohibits the inquiry when punishment other than that
of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank is awarded.
The   procedure      to   be   followed    in     awarding    other
punishments is laid down in the service rules governing
the employee. What is further, Article 311(2)                applies
only to members of the civil services of the Union or an
all India service or a civil service of a State or to the
holders of the civil posts under the Union or a State. In
the matter of all punishments both Government servants
and   others   are    governed      by    their    service    rules.
                               15                              WP-561-25.odt



Whenever, therefore, the service rules contemplate an
inquiry before a punishment is awarded, and when the
Inquiry Officer is not the disciplinary authority the
delinquent employee will have the right to receive the
Inquiry Officer's report notwithstanding the nature of the
punishment.


(iii) Since it is the right of the employee to, have the
report to defend himself effectively, and he would not
know in advance whether the report is in his favour or
against him, it will not be proper to construe his failure
to ask for the report, as the waiver of his right. Whether,
therefore, the employee asks for the, report or not, the
report has to be furnished to him.


(iv) In the view that we have taken, viz., that the right to
make representation to the disciplinary authority against
the findings recorded in the inquiry report is an integral
part of the opportunity of defence against the charges
and is a breach of principles of natural justice to deny
the said right, it is only appropriate that the law laid
down in Mohd. Ramzan Khan’s cas (AIR 1991 SC 471)
(supra) should apply to employees in all establishments
whether Government or non-Government, public or
private. This will be the case whether there are rules
governing      the   disciplinary   proceeding    or   not      and
whether they expressly prohibit the furnishing of the
copy of the report or are silent on the subject. Whatever
the nature of punishment, further, whenever the rules
require   an    inquiry   to   be   held,   for   inflicting     the
punishment in question, the delinquent employee should
have the benefit of the report of the Inquiry Officer
                           16                       WP-561-25.odt



before the disciplinary authority records its findings on
the charges levelled against him. Hence question (iv) is
answered accordingly.


(v) The next question to be answered is what is the
effect on the order of punishment when the report of the
Inquiry Officer is not furnished to the employee and
what relief should be granted to him in such cases. The
answer to this question has to be relative to the
punishment awarded. When the employee is dismissed
or removed from service and the inquiry is set aside
because the report is not furnished to him, in some
cases the non- furnishing of the report may have
prejudiced him gravely while in other cases it may have
made no difference to the ultimate punishment awarded
to him. Hence to direct reinstatement of the employee
with back-wages in all cases is to reduce the rules of
justice to a mechanical ritual. The theory of reasonable
opportunity and the principles of natural justice have
been evolved to uphold the rule of law and to assist the
individual to vindicate his just rights. They are not
incantations to be invoked nor rites to be performed on
all and sundry occasions. Whether in fact, prejudice has
been caused to the employee or not on account of the
denial to him of the report, has to be considered on the
facts and circumstances of each case. Where, therefore,
even after the furnishing of the report, no different
consequence would have followed, it would be a
perversion of justice to permit the employee to resume
duty and to get all the consequential benefits. It
amounts to rewarding the dishonest and the guilty and
thus to stretching the concept of justice to illogical and
                                        17                             WP-561-25.odt



      exasperating      limits.    It    amounts       to   a   "unnatural
      expansion of natural justice" which in itself is antithetical
      to justice.”


19.   The Hon’ble Apex Court has also observed in paragraph

No.26 to 29 which are reproduced as under;

       “26. The reason why the right to receive the report of
       the Inquiry Officer is considered an essential part of the
       reasonable opportunity it the first stage and also a
       principle of natural justice is that the findings recorded
       by the Inquiry Officer form an important material before
       the disciplinary authority which along with the evidence
       is taken into consideration by it to come to its
       conclusions. It is difficult to say in advance, to what
       extent the said findings including the punishment, if
       any, recommended in the report would influence the
       disciplinary authority while drawing its conclusions. The
       findings further might have been recorded without
       considering the relevant evidence on record, or by
       misconstruing it or unsupported by it. If such a finding
       is to be one of the documents to be considered by the
       disciplinary authority, the principles of natural justice
       require   that    the      employee        should    have   a     fair
       opportunity to meet, explain and controvert it before he
       is condemned. It is the negation of the tenets of justice
       and a denial of fair opportunity to the employee to
       consider the findings recorded by a third party like the
       Inquiry   Officer    without          giving   the   employee      an
       opportunity to reply to it. Although it is true that the
       disciplinary authority is supposed to arrive at its own
       findings on the basis of the evidence recorded in the
                              18                          WP-561-25.odt



inquiry, it is also equally true that the disciplinary
authority takes into consideration the findings recorded
by the Inquiry Officer along with the evidence on
record. In the circumstances, the findings of the Inquiry
Officer do constitute an important material before the
disciplinary authority which is likely to influence its
conclusions. If the Inquiry Officer were only to record
the evidence and forward the same to the disciplinary
authority, that would not constitute any additional
material before the disciplinary authority of which the
delinquent employee has no knowledge. However,
when the Inquiry Officer goes further and records his
findings, as stated above, which may or may not be
based on the evidence on record or are contrary to the
same or in ignorance of it, such findings are an
additional material unknown to the employee but are
taken into consideration by the disciplinary, authority
while arriving at its conclusion. Both the dictates of the
reasonable opportunity as well as the principles of
natural justice, therefore, require that before the
disciplinary, authority comes to its own conclusions, the
delinquent employee should have an opportunity to
reply to the Inquiry Officer's findings. The disciplinary
authority is then required to consider the evidence, the
report of the Inquiry Officer and the representation of
the employee against it.


27.    It will thus be seen that where the Inquiry Officer
is other than the disciplinary authority, the disciplinary
proceedings break into two stages. The first stage ends
when     the   disciplinary        authority   arrives   at   its
conclusions on the basis of the evidence, Inquiry
                            19                        WP-561-25.odt



Officer's report and the delinquent employee's reply to
it. The second stage begins when the disciplinary
authority decides to impose penalty on the basis of its
conclusions. If the disciplinary authority decides to drop
the disciplinary proceedings, the second stage is not
even reached. The employee's right to receive the
report is thus, a part of the reasonable opportunity of
defending himself in the first stage of the inquiry. If this
right is denied to him, he is in effect denied the right to
defend himself and to prove his innocence in the
disciplinary proceedings.


28.   The position in law can also be looked at from a
slightly different angle.    Article 311(2) says that the
employee shall be given a "reasonable opportunity of
being heard in respect of the charges against him". The
findings on the charges given by a third person like the
enquiry Officer, particularly when they are not borne
out by the evidence or are arrived at by overlooking the
evidence     or   misconstruing   it,   could   themselves
constitute   new   unwarranted     imputations.   What    is
further, when the proviso to the said Article states that
"where it is proposed after such inquiry to impose upon
him any such penalty may be imposed on the basis of
the evidence adduced during such inquiry and it shall
not be necessary to give such person any opportunity
of making representation on the penalty proposed", it
in effect accepts two successive stages of differing
scope. Since the penalty is to be proposed after the
inquiry, which inquiry in effect is to be carried out by
the disciplinary authority (the Inquiry Officer being only
his delegate appointed to hold the inquiry and to assist
                                 20                                WP-561-25.odt



him), the employee's reply to the Inquiry Officer's
report      and   consideration         of     such   reply   by     the
disciplinary authority also constitute an integral part of
such inquiry. The second stage follows the inquiry so
carried out and it consists of the issuance of the notice
to show cause against the proposed penalty and of
considering the reply to the notice and deciding upon
the penalty. What is dispensed with is the opportunity
of making representation on the penalty proposed and
not of opportunity of making representation on the
report of the Inquiry Officer. The latter right was always
there.   But      before   the        42nd     Amendment      of     the
Constitution, the point of time at which it was to be
exercised had stood deferred till the second stage viz.,
the stage of considering the penalty. Till that time, the
conclusions that the disciplinary authority might have
arrived at both with regard to the guilt of the employee
and the penalty to be imposed were only tentative. All
that has happened after the 42nd Amendment of the
Constitution is to advance the point of time at which
the representation of the employee against the enquiry
Officer's    report    would      be         considered.   Now,      the
disciplinary authority has to consider the representation
of the employee against the report before it arrives at
its conclusion with regard to his guilt or innocence of
the charges.


29.   Hence it has to be held that when the Inquiry
Officer is not the disciplinary authority, the delinquent
employee has right to receive a copy of the Inquiry
Officer's report before the disciplinary authority arrives
at its conclusions with regard to the guilt or innocence
                                  21                         WP-561-25.odt



      of the employee with regard to the charges levelled
      against him. That right is a part of the employee's right
      to defend himself against the charges levelled against
      him. A denial of the Inquiry Officer's report before the
      disciplinary authority takes its decision on the charges
      is a denial of reasonable opportunity to the employee to
      prove his innocence and is a breach of the principles of
      natural justice.”




20.   Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present

case, it is evident that the right of the petitioner to submit an

effective representation against the findings recorded by the

Inquiry Officer assumes significance. The inquiry report formed the

basis for the disciplinary authority to proceed further and propose

imposition of penalty. Therefore, before arriving at a final

conclusion,   the   petitioner   was   required   to   be   afforded    a

meaningful opportunity to examine the findings recorded against

him and place his objections before the disciplinary authority.


21.   Overlooking the aforesaid aspects, the disciplinary authority

proceeded on the basis of the inquiry report and proposed the

major penalty of compulsory retirement. The denial of an effective

opportunity to deal with the material relied upon against him has,

therefore, caused serious prejudice to the petitioner, having

deprived of an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority

regarding the correctness of the findings and the proposed
                                  22                         WP-561-25.odt



punishment. The prejudice is further evident from the fact that the

disciplinary authority proceeded to impose the penalty without the

petitioner's defence being considered in its proper perspective.


22.   The very object underlying Regulation No.39 of the Service

Regulations, which obligates the disciplinary authority to furnish

the charges framed in writing and to afford a reasonable

opportunity to the delinquent employee to submit his explanation

and defend himself, is to ensure that the employee is extended

with a meaningful opportunity before any conclusion is arrived.

Such opportunity necessarily ought to be extended to the stage

where the disciplinary authority proposes to act upon the findings

recorded by the Inquiry Officer and considers the question of

imposition of penalty.


23.   The   Inquiry   Officer,   having   been   appointed     by    the

disciplinary authority, acts as a delegate for the limited purpose of

conducting the inquiry and submitting his findings. The submission

of the inquiry report, therefore, cannot be treated as bringing the

disciplinary proceedings to an end. The stage subsequent thereto,

i.e. i) furnishing the inquiry report, ii) issuing notice regarding the

proposed penalty, iii) permitting the delinquent employee to

submit his representation and consideration of same by the

disciplinary authority, forms an integral part of the decision-

making process.
                                   23                             WP-561-25.odt




24.    Thus, the inquiry proceedings comprise not only the

recording   of   findings   by    the   Inquiry   Officer   but    also   the

consideration of the response of the delinquent employee by the

disciplinary authority before arriving at a final decision regarding

the penalty to be imposed. Any denial of such opportunity would

defeat the very purpose for which Regulation No.39 of the Service

Regulations has been incorporated.


25.    Perusal of the record unequivocally indicates that after

receipt of the report from the disciplinary authority, indicating the

proposed punishment, the petitioner made a reasonable request

for   submitting   the   reply,   however,    the    request      is   neither

considered and, resultantly, no time is extended even at this

juncture, the reasonable opportunity to the petitioner has been

denied.


26.    In Moni Shankar (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has

held that departmental inquiries are quasi-judicial proceedings

governed by the principles of natural justice. The statutory

procedural safeguards are mandatory and cannot be bypassed

under the guise of mere administrative guidelines; and inherently

protect innocent employees from arbitrary action and non-

compliance effectively vitiates the entire disciplinary proceeding.
                                     24                            WP-561-25.odt



27.   The record reveals that inspite the petitioner’s explicit

request dated 18.11.2022 seeking the production of essential

documents,     the   respondents      chose       to   remain   silent.     After

subsequent reminders, the respondent-bank denied disclosure,

contending that the requested records constituted exempt internal

bank documents and could not be shared. Consequently, the

Petitioner was constrained to opt for the underlying documents

through RTI.


28.   Regrettably,    this    did   not   alter    the      approach   of    the

respondent-employer. A bare perusal of the record, specifically the

documents      obtained      from   NABARD,       clearly    demonstrates      a

prejudice against the petitioner at every juncture. Furthermore, it

appears that the Inquiry Officer acted merely as a tool of the

disciplinary authority. Therefore, by routinely refused to supply

relevant documents.       The disclosure of which was indispensable

for the petitioner to submit an effective reply and to putforth a

proper defense. The Inquiry Officer failed to act independently.

Such withholding of vital documents at the inquiry stage has

severely impacted the petitioner's right to defend himself.


29.   The learned counsel appearing for the respondent, when

confronted with the grounds raised in the petition, sought to justify

the action primarily on the basis that the petitioner was involved in

serious charges and that a chargesheet was served upon him
                               25                       WP-561-25.odt



followed by conduct of inquiry. However, apart from the aforesaid

general assertions, no specific material was placed on record to

demonstrate that the documents sought by the petitioner were

furnished, or that the objections raised by him during the inquiry

proceedings were duly considered.


30.   Although sufficient opportunity being available to the

respondent Bank to place the relevant record and explain the

manner in which the inquiry proceedings were conducted, the

respondent consciously chose not to place such material before

this Court to demonstrate. In the absence of the relevant material

on record being produced, the Court is constrained to draw an

adverse inference against the respondent Bank for withholding the

material which was directly relevant for adjudication of the issues

raised in the petition. In such circumstances, the reliance placed

by the respondent upon the judgments cited in support of the

impugned action does not advance its case.


31.   As far as the submissions regarding the petitioner's receipt

of terminal benefits are concerned, the same would not preclude

the petitioner   from challenging   the penalty order     if it   is

unsustainable in law or arbitrary. There can be no waiver or

acceptance of an illegal penalty, and the right to assail the order

remains intact
                                      26                        WP-561-25.odt



      32.   Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, we are of

      the considered view that the disciplinary proceedings conducted

      against the petitioner suffer from violation of the principles of

      natural justice and the mandatory requirements contemplated

      under the Service Regulations. The failure on the part of the

      respondent-Bank to furnish the relevant material and to afford an

      effective and meaningful opportunity to the petitioner has resulted

      in serious prejudice to his defence. Consequently, the inquiry

      proceedings and the consequential order of punishment cannot be

      sustained in law and are hereby quashed and set aside.


      33.   In view of the aforesaid discussion and findings recorded

      hereinabove, the petitioner is, therefore, entitled for the relief of

      re-instatement along with the consequential benefits thereon, in

      accordance with law.


      34.   Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed in above terms.


      35.   The respondent-authorities shall comply with the directions

      issued hereinabove within a period of three months from today.

      There shall be no order as to costs.


      36.   Rule is made absolute, accordingly.




       [SACHIN S. DESHMUKH]                  [SMT. VIBHA KANKANWADI]
               JUDGE                                   JUDGE
rrd