STATE BANK OF BIKANER AND JAIPURversusAJAY KUMAR GULATI

A                STATE BANK OF BIKANER AND JAIPUR
                                 v.
                        AJAY KUMAR GULATI

                                  JULY 16, 1996

B             [B.P. JEEVAN REDDY AND SUHAS C. SEN, JJ.]

          Se1vice Law:

          Disciplinary inquiiy-To be held afresh-Stage from which to be con-
C   ducted de novcr-Explained.

          Constitution of India, 1950 :

           A1ticle 136-Scope of-Held, it is not advisable to interfere with the
    order of the High Cowt even if a view other than that taken by the High Court
D   is also possible.

          The respondent was subjected to disciplinary inquiry. The inquiry
    ollicer found the charges to have been established and gave his report
    accordingly. The respondent submitted his objections to the said report.
    The disciplinary authority, in order to give further opportunity to the
E   respondent. to put his defence, ordered the inquiry to be conducted afresh
    and appointed another inquiry ollicer. The respondent challenged the
    order of the disciplinary authority in a writ petition before the High Court,
    which disposed of the matter giving certain di.rections. Aggrieved, the
    employer-Bank filed the present appeal.

F         Dismissing the appeal, this Court

        HELD : 1. The High Court was right in holding that the enquiry
  should not be from the very beginning; the Department's evidence was
  already completed and some evidence of the employee was also recorded;
  the new enquiry ollicer should proceed to give opportunity to the employee
G to produce his documentary and oral evidence and also consider the
  question of recalling any witness for further cross-examination by the
  employee and then proceed to decide the matter afresh. The High Court
  has given reasons for the direction it has given, in suppression of the
  orders of the notified disciplinary authority. It cannot be said that the view
H taken by the High Court is not a possible view. It is not advisable under
                                       642
        STATEBANKOFBIKANERANDJAIPURv. A.KGULATI[JEEVANREDDY,J.)          643

Article 136 of the Constitution to interfere with the order of the High         A
Court, even if another view of the matter is possible. (646-A-l'l

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 9226 of
1996.

     Frum the Judgment and Order dated. 6.9.95 of the Delhi High Court          B
in C.W.P. No. 405 of 1995.

        A.K. Sikri and Ms. Madhu Sikri for the Appellant.

        Manoj Goel and Ms. Abba R. Sharma for the Respondent.
                                                                                c
        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

      B.P. JEEVAN REDDY, J. Leave granted. Heard the counsel for the
parties.

      This appeal is preferred by th employer, State Bank of Bikaner and        D
Jaipur against the judgment and order of the Delhi High Court giving
certain directions \vith respect to the scope of disciplinary enquiry to be
conducted against the respondent- employee.

      A disciplinary enquiry was held against the respondent with respect       E
to certain grave charges. The enquiry officer reported that the charges
were established. Respondent submitted his comments and objections to
the report of the enquiry officer. After considering the report and the
objections, the disciplinary authority passed the following order on April
29, 1994. It is indeed a communication addressed to the respondent:
                                                                                F
          "With reference to your representation dated the 16th December,
          1993, \vith regard to proceedings and findings of the Enquiry
          Officer constituted earlier to go into the charges against you, we
          have carefully gone into the points raised by you in your repre-
          sentation and having applied our mind dispa.,sionately have ob-       G
          served that though his findings are sufficient for taking a view in
          the matter, to expel every iota of doubt and to provide every
          opportunity to you to put your defence, another opportunity in the
          name of justice may be given to you to make your position clear.

          I have, therefore, issued orders for conducting the cnquiJy against   H
    644                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A          you afresh and have appointed Shri S.K. Supckar, Branch Manager,
           D.N. Market, Ahmedabad as Enquiry Officer to conduct the neces-
            sary departmental enquiry. The notice dated 29.4.1994 issued by
            me in this respect is enclosed.

            The date, time and place of the enquiry will be advised to you by
B           the Enquiry Officer. Your are advised to remain available to him
            as and when required. Please also finalise the selection of your
            representative for defending your case, before the commencement
            of the proceedings in case you wish to engage one.

            Please ocknowledge receipt.
c
            Yours faithfully,

            sd/-
            C.K. MISHRA
D           Notified Disciplinary Authority."

        On the same day, the very same authority addressed another com-
  munication to Sri S.K. Supekar, Branch Man ager, State Bank of Bikaner
  and Jaipur, D.N. Market, Ahmedabad intimating that he has been ap-
  pointed the enquiry officer and asking him to commence the enquiry on
E May 26, 1994 and complete the same within the period prescribed. The
    communication reads as follo\vs :

            "The abovenamed was issued charge sheet no. DGM/ DPS/159
            dated 24.9 .1991 for committing certain acts of misconduct while
            posted as ALPMO at Amar Colony, New Delhi branch. Following
F           the denial of charge by Shri Gulati, matter was got enquired into.
            Enquiry Officer has since submitted the Enquiry report. Keeping
            in view the representation made by Shri Gulati and with a view to
            give him full opportunity to put up his defences, it has been decided
            by ljle to get the mailer enquired afresh and have appointed you as
G           Enquiry Officer. I forward herewith the copies of the following
            documents for your perusal and necessary action.

            1. Note dated 29.4.94 issued by me appointing you as Enquiry
            Officer.

H           2. Copy of Order dated 29.4.1994, appointing Shri G.S. Talwar as
      STAIB BANK OF BIKANERAND JAIPUR v. A.K GULATI [JEEVAN REDDY,J.J   645

        Bank's Representative.                                                 A
        3. Copy of Charge Sheet no . DGM/DPS/159 dated 24/09/1991
        issued to Shri A.K. Gulati.

        4. Time schedule of the enquiry.
                                                                               R
        5. Copy of letter no. DGM/DPS/ dated 29.4.1994 addressed to Shri
        A.K. Gulati.

        You are advised to con1n1ence the enqui1y on 26.5.1994 as men-
        tioned in the schedule of enquiry. You are further advised to
        complete the enquiry within the given schedule by holding the same     c
        on day to day basis without break. Please note that your report
        must reach me positively within the stipulated period as detailed
        in the enclosed time schedule.

        Yours faithfully,
        sd/-                                                                   D
        (C.K. Mishra)
        Notified Disciplinary Authority"

      The respondent questioned the aforesaid proceedings/order dated
April 29, 1994 by way of a writ petition (C.W. No. 405 of 1995) in the Delhi   E
High Court. Though several grounds were raised in the writ petition, the
only question urged before the High Court, as it appears from the order
of the High Court was, from which stage of proceeding should the de-nova
enquiry commence. It would be appropriate to extract the order of the
High Court in its entirety:
                                                                               F
        "This writ petition can be disposed of at this stage as now the only
        question addressed before us is as to from what state of the
        proceedings, the de ?-ova enyuiry ~houkl commence. A new en-
        quiry officer has .been appointed vide impugned order and im-
        pugned order has ordered de nova enquiry which, according to G
        our view, was not justified. The reason given for holding fresh
        enquiry is that petitioner's grievance that he had not been given
        proper opportunity for defending his case by leading documentary
        and oral evidence has been accepted by the department and for
        affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner for
        giving his full defence, de nova enquiry has been ordered.           ·H
    646                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS j 1996] SUPP. 3 S.C.R.

A                We are of the view that the enquiry should not be from the
             very beginning. The Department's evidence has already been com-
             pleted and some evidence of the petitioner has also been recorded.
             The New Enquiry Officer should now proceed to give opportunity
             to the petitioner to produce his documentary and oral evidence
             and also consider the question of recalling any 'vitness for further
B
             cross-examination by the petitioner and then proceed to decide
             the matter afresh.

                The petitioner be given his dues according to the rules.

                  With these directions, this writ petition is disposed of. Parties
c            are left to bear their own costs. The application is also disposed
             of."

        In this appeal, it is contended by the appellant-Bank that there is no
  warrant for the High Court to direct that the enquiry to be conducted
D hereinafter should. be confined lo the recording of the evidence to be
  adduced by the respondent alone. The learned counsel for the appellant
  contends that no reasons are given in support of the direction made by the
  High Court.

           We are not prepared to agree. The High Court has given reasons for
E the direction it has given, in superession of the orders of the notified
    authority. We are unable to say that the view taken by the High Court is
    not a possibl<; view. Acting under Article 136, we do not think it advisable
    to interfere with the order of the High Court, even if we find that another
    view of the matter is possible.

F          The appeal is dismissed accordingly. No costs.

    R.P.                                                        Appeal dismissed.