# Dian Nath Chaube v. Central Bank of India and others

- **Citation:** (2011) 1 ILRA 416
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2011-04-19
- **Bench:** Devi Prasad Singh, S.C. Chaurasia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/dian-nath-chaube-v-central-bank-of-india-and-others-41859
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Constitution of India, Article 311(2)-
Dismissal order-without supplying copy
of preliminary inquiry without giving
opportunity to produce all the witnessesnon supply of material document-heldvitiate entire disciplinary proceedingseven appellant authority not considered
this aspect-held-order not sustainable.

Held: Para 14 & 15

In
view
of
above,
so
far
as
the
submission of learned counsel for the
petitioner that the Disciplinary Authority
has not exercised its jurisdiction as an
independent
adjudicator
and
not
considered the objections filed by the
petitioner and also not discussed the
evidence available on record except
reproducing the observation made by the
Enquiry Officer, mechanically, seems to
be correct. The Disciplinary Authority
should have passed a speaking and
reasoned order after considering the
evidence led by the parties. It was
1 All] Dian Nath Chaube V. Central Bank of India and others
417
obligatory on the part of Disciplinary
Authority to record finding with regard
to petitioner's objection for non-supply
of copy of preliminary enquiry report as
well as in not permitting the petitioner
to
produce
all
seven witnesses
as
demanded during the course of enquiry.

The appellate authority has also not
applied its mind with regard to aforesaid
facts and circumstances while dismissing
the
appeal
mechanically
without
recording the finding with regard to
objection filed by the petitioner. On the
sole ground, the writ petition deserves to
be allowed leaving it open for the
Disciplinary Authority to consider the
same while passing a fresh order.
Case law discussed:
(2003) 3 Supreme Court Cases 450; (2000) 3
Supreme Court Cases 454; AIR 1997 Supreme
Court 3387; (1999) 7 Supreme Court Cases
739; (2004) 2 UPLBEC 1457; (2004) 2 UPLBEC
1461; (1995) 6 SCC 750; (2005) 1 UPLBEC
354; (2005) 1 UPLBEC 368; (1999) 8 Supreme
Court Cases 582; (1999) 8 Supreme Court
Cases 584; (2010) 3 Supreme Court Cases
732; (2010) 2 Supreme Court Cases 772;
(2010) 2 Supreme Court Cases 786; AIR 1982
Supreme Court 937; (1975) 1 Supreme Court
Cases 155; (1975) 1 Supreme Court Cases
156; A.I.R. 1974 SC 1589.

## Text

416 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011

13. It may be added that from the
provisions and citations referred to above,
it is manifest that the party objecting to
Commissioner's report can lead best
possible evidence at the time of hearing to
countermand the report even if the same
was accepted earlier.

14. The report of the Commissioner
may be relied on after examining the
Commissioner not as report forming the
basis of an investigation contemplated by
Order 26, Rule 9, but as corroborating the
evidence of inspection conducted by the
Commissioner The view by the lower
court therefore that the report can be
treated as evidence in the suit under Order
26, Rule 10, Sub-rule (2), C.P.C. is
palpably incorrect.

15. For the reasons aforesaid, I setaside the impugned orders and allow the
petition. However, it is provided that it
will be open for both the parties to
substantiate the respective contentions
regarding the tenability or untenability of
the
Commissioner's
report
and
its
conclusions.

16. As the Regular Suit No.225 of
1992 is pending since 1992, as such, the
trial Court shall make earnest endeavour
in deciding the suit, after affording
opportunity of hearing to the parties and
in accordance with law, expeditiously,
say, within a period of two years from the
date of receipt of a certified copy of this
order.
---------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 19.04.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE DEVI PRASAD SINGH,J.
THE HON'BLE S.C. CHAURASIA,J.

Service Bench No. - 862 of 1994

Dina Nath Chaube

 ...Petitioner
Versus
Central Bank of India and others

 ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri A.Mannan
Sri S.C.Mishra
Sri S.K. Singh
Sri Sharad Kumar Chaudhary
Sri Sharad Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri Vinay Shankar
C.S.C.

Constitution of India, Article 311(2)-
Dismissal order-without supplying copy
of preliminary inquiry without giving
opportunity to produce all the witnessesnon supply of material document-heldvitiate entire disciplinary proceedingseven appellant authority not considered
this aspect-held-order not sustainable.

Held: Para 14 & 15

In
view
of
above,
so
far
as
the
submission of learned counsel for the
petitioner that the Disciplinary Authority
has not exercised its jurisdiction as an
independent
adjudicator
and
not
considered the objections filed by the
petitioner and also not discussed the
evidence available on record except
reproducing the observation made by the
Enquiry Officer, mechanically, seems to
be correct. The Disciplinary Authority
should have passed a speaking and
reasoned order after considering the
evidence led by the parties. It was
1 All] Dian Nath Chaube V. Central Bank of India and others
417
obligatory on the part of Disciplinary
Authority to record finding with regard
to petitioner's objection for non-supply
of copy of preliminary enquiry report as
well as in not permitting the petitioner
to
produce
all
seven witnesses
as
demanded during the course of enquiry.

The appellate authority has also not
applied its mind with regard to aforesaid
facts and circumstances while dismissing
the
appeal
mechanically
without
recording the finding with regard to
objection filed by the petitioner. On the
sole ground, the writ petition deserves to
be allowed leaving it open for the
Disciplinary Authority to consider the
same while passing a fresh order.
Case law discussed:
(2003) 3 Supreme Court Cases 450; (2000) 3
Supreme Court Cases 454; AIR 1997 Supreme
Court 3387; (1999) 7 Supreme Court Cases
739; (2004) 2 UPLBEC 1457; (2004) 2 UPLBEC
1461; (1995) 6 SCC 750; (2005) 1 UPLBEC
354; (2005) 1 UPLBEC 368; (1999) 8 Supreme
Court Cases 582; (1999) 8 Supreme Court
Cases 584; (2010) 3 Supreme Court Cases
732; (2010) 2 Supreme Court Cases 772;
(2010) 2 Supreme Court Cases 786; AIR 1982
Supreme Court 937; (1975) 1 Supreme Court
Cases 155; (1975) 1 Supreme Court Cases
156; A.I.R. 1974 SC 1589.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Devi Prasad Singh,J. )

1. The petitioner, who happens to be
the Branch Manager of the respondentbank namely Central Bank of India, has
approached this court under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India against the
impugned order of punishment whereby
the petitioner has been removed from
service.

2. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner & respondents.

3. According to learned counsel for
the petitioner, on the basis of preliminary
enquiry report, the chargesheet dated 20
January, 1990, was served on the
petitioner containing as many as 29
charges. The preliminary enquiry was
conducted by one Sri G.B.Pandey. After
receipt of the chargesheet, the petitioner
had moved an application for supply of
copy of the report of the preliminary
enquiry report and other documents. At
the face of record, it appears that the same
was not provided to the petitioner. The
respondent-bank claimed privilege with
regard to the enquiry report and declined
to
supply
the
same.
Under
these
circumstances, the petitioner could not
file reply to the chargesheet. However, the
Enquiry Officer had proceeded with the
enquiry and recorded the statements of
certain witnesses who were duly crossexamined by the petitioner. At the
defence stage, the petitioner had moved
an application for producing seven
witnesses.
However,
out
of
seven
witnesses, only four witnesses were
permitted to be produced, whose names
are Shyam Sunder Pandey, Chandra
Prakash Mishra, Nakchhed Pandey and
Gorakh
Nath.
On
behalf
of
the
prosecution/respondent-bank, only one
witness namely Sri G.B.Pandey, who
conducted the preliminary enquiry, was
produced. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer
has submitted the enquiry report and in
pursuance thereof, the impugned order of
punishment has been passed by the
Disciplinary Authority.

4. While assailing the impugned
order, it has been submitted by learned
counsel for the petitioner that the
privilege claimed by the respondent-bank
with regard to non supply of copy of the
preliminary enquiry report which is the
foundation of the allegation, is not
sustainable and the Disciplinary Authority
has got no right to claim any privilege.
418 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011

5. Submission of learned counsel for
the petitioner is that since the preliminary
enquiry report has been relied upon and the
sole witness on behalf of the prosecution is
the officer concerned who has conducted
the preliminary enquiry, hence, preliminary
enquiry report is a material document and
non furnishing of the copy of the
preliminary enquiry report had caused
serious prejudice to the petitioner.

6. It has also been submitted by
learned counsel for the petitioner that
because of non supply of documents
alongwith the copy of the preliminary
enquiry report, the petitioner could not
submit reply to the chargesheet. After
receipt of the show cause notice alongwith
the enquiry report, the petitioner has
submitted reply and stated that non supply
of copy of preliminary enquiry report has
caused serious prejudice. The Enquiry
Officer has not called the material witnesses
inspite of the application moved by the
petitioner. It has also been submitted that
impugned order passed by the Disciplinary
Authority is a non speaking one. Neither the
reply submitted by the petitioner has been
considered nor the evidence led by the
petitioner in the form of defence witnesses
has been taken into account while passing
the impugned order of punishment.

7. Further submission of learned
counsel for the petitioner is that there is no
allegation against the petitioner with regard
to embezzlement or causing loss to the
bank.

8. So far as first submission of learned
counsel for the petitioner that the impugned
order is a non speaking one and nonconsideration of objection submitted by the
petitioner, seems to be correct. A perusal of
the impugned order reveals that the
Disciplinary Authority had reproduced the
charges in the impugned order and
thereafter, referred the observation made by
the Enquiry Officer with regard to those
charges and thereafter recorded finding, but,
while doing so, the Disciplinary Authority
had not discussed nor referred or taken into
account the statements given by the defence
witnesses, and how and under what
circumstances, the Disciplinary Authority
has arrived to the conclusion with regard to
finding of guilt of the petitioner.

9. Now, it is settled proposition of law
that it is obligatory on the part of the
Disciplinary Authority to record a specific
finding after taking into account the
evidence led by the parties and then record a
finding.

10. It is also settled proposition of law
that non furnishing of material documents
and that too like the preliminary enquiry
report vitiates the enquiry proceedings.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner
has relied upon the following Judgments
reported in :-

1. (2000) 3 Supreme Court Cases
450, U.P .State Road Transport Corpn.
and Others Versus Mahesh Kumar
Mishra and Others

2.(2000) 3 Supreme Court Cases
454, Rang Bahadur Singh and Others
Versus State of U.P.

3. AIR 1997 Supreme Court 3387,
Union of India and another Versus
G.Ganayutham (Dead) by L.Rs.

4. (1999) 7 Supreme Court Cases
739, Yoginath D. Bagde Versus State of
Maharashtra and Another
1 All] Dian Nath Chaube V. Central Bank of India and others
419

5. (2004) 2 UPLBEC 1457, Kailash
Nath Gupta, Ex-Recovery Officer,
Allahabad
Bank
Versus
Enquiry
Officer, Allahabad Bank, Regional
Officer, Allahabad and others

6. (2004)2 UPLBEC 1461, Raj
Kishore Yadav Versus U.P. State
Public
Service
Tribunal,
Indra
Bhawan, Lucknow and others

7. (1995)6 SCC, 750 Union of India
and another Versus B.C.Chaturvedi.

8. (2005) 1 UPLBEC 354, Ganesh
Santa Ram Sirur Versus State Bank of
India and another

9. (2005) 1 UPLBEC 368, Sanjeev
Gupta and others Versus Union of
India and another

10. (1999) 8 Supreme Court Cases
582, Hardwari Lal Versus State of U.P.
and others.

11. (1999) 8 Supreme Court Cases
584, S.Jamaludeen and others Verus
High Court of Madras and others

12. (2010) 3 Supreme Court Cases
732, Secretary and Curator, Victoria
Memorial
Hall
Versus
Howrah
Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity and others.

13. (2010) 2 Supreme Court Cases
772, State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
Versus Saroj Kumar Sinha

14. (2010) 2 Supreme Court Cases
786, Tamil Nadu Housing Board
Versus L. Chandrasekaran (dead) by
Lrs. And others

15. AIR 1982 Supreme Court 937,
State of Uttar Pradesh Versus Mohd.
Sharif (dead) through L.Rs.

16. (1975) 1 Supreme Court Cases
155, the State of Punjab Versus Bhagat
Ram

17. (1975) 1 Supreme Court Cases
156, Smt. Hardeep Kaur and Another
Versus the State of Punjab and another

12. In the case of Secretary and
Curator, Victoria Memorial Hall(Supra),
their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme
Court, held as under:-

"40. It is a settled legal proposition
that not only an administrative but also a
judicial order must be supported by
reasons, recorded in it. Thus, while
deciding an issue, the court is bound to
give reasons for its conclusion. It is the
duty and obligation on the part of the
court to record reasons while disposing of
the case. The hallmark of an order and
exercise of judicial power by a judicial
forum is to disclose its reasons by itself
and giving of reasons has always been
insisted upon as one of the fundamentals
of sound administration of justice-delivery
system, to make known that there had
been proper and due application of mind
to the issue before the court and also as
an essential requisite of the principles of
natural justice."The giving of reasons for
a decision is an essential attribute of
judicial and judicious disposal of a matter
before courts, and which is the only
indication to know about the manner and
quality of exercise undertaken, as also the
fact that the court concerned had really
applied its mind."(Vide State of Orissa V.
Dhaniram Luhar and State of Rajasthan
V. Sohan Lal)
420 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2011

41. Reason is the heartbeat of every
conclusion. It introduces clarity in an
order and without the same, it becomes
lifeless. Reasons substitute subjectivity by
objectivity. Absence of reasons renders
the
order
indefensible/unsustainable
particularly when the order is subject to
further
challenge
before
a
higher
forum.(Vide Raj Kishore Jha V. State of
Bihar, SCC p. 527,para 19; Vishnu Dev
Sharma V. State of U.P., Sail Vs. STO,
State of Uttranchal V. Sunil Kumar Singh
Negi, U.P.SRTC V. Jagdish Prasad
Gupta, Ram Phal V. State of Haryana,
Mohd Yusuf V. Faij Mohammad and State
of H.P. V. Sada Ram."

13. In the case of State of U.P. and
others (Supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court
while discussing the right and duty of the
Disciplinary Authority, held as under :-

"28. An inquiry officer acting in a
quasi-judicial authority is in the position
of an independent adjudicator. He is not
supposed to be a representative of the
department/disciplinary
authority
/Government. His function is to examine
the
evidence
presented
by
the
Department, even in the absence of the
delinquent official to see as to whether the
unrebutted evidence is sufficient to hold
that the charges are proved. In the
present case, the aforesaid procedure has
not been observed. Since no oral evidence
has been examined the documents have
not been proved, and could not have been
taken into consideration to conclude that
the charges have been proved against the
respondents.

29. Apart from the above, by virtue
of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of
India the departmental enquiry had to be
conducted in accordance with the rules of
natural justice. It is a basic requirement
of the rules of natural justice that an
employee
be
given
a
reasonable
opportunity of being heard in any
proceedings which may culminate in
punishment
being
imposed
on
the
employee.

30. When a departmental enquiry is
conducted against the government servant
it cannot treated as a casual exercise. The
enquiry proceedings also cannot be
conducted with a closed mind. The
inquiry officer has to be wholly unbiased.
The rules of natural justice are required
to be observed to ensure not only that
justice is done but is manifestly seen to be
done. The object of rules of natural justice
is to ensure that a government servant is
treated fairly in proceedings which may
culminate in imposition of punishment
including dismissal/removal from service.

14. In view of above, so far as the
submission of learned counsel for the
petitioner that the Disciplinary Authority
has not exercised its jurisdiction as an
independent
adjudicator
and
not
considered the objections filed by the
petitioner and also not discussed the
evidence available on record except
reproducing the observation made by the
Enquiry Officer, mechanically, seems to
be correct. The Disciplinary Authority
should have passed a speaking and
reasoned order after considering the
evidence led by the parties. It was
obligatory on the part of Disciplinary
Authority to record finding with regard to
petitioner's objection for non-supply of
copy of preliminary enquiry report as well
as in not permitting the petitioner to
produce all seven witnesses as demanded
during the course of enquiry.
1 All] Kulwant Singh V. State of U.P. and others
421

15. The appellate authority has also
not applied its mind with regard to
aforesaid facts and circumstances while
dismissing
the
appeal
mechanically
without recording the finding with regard
to objection filed by the petitioner. On the
sole ground, the writ petition deserves to
be allowed leaving it open for the
Disciplinary Authority to consider the
same while passing a fresh order.

16. Supreme Court in a case
reported in A.I.R. 1974 SC 1589, Krishna
Chandra Tandon Vs The Union of India,
held that preliminary enquiry report is
material piece of of evidence, and its non
supply should be violative of principles of
natural justice. Hence, writ petition
deserves to be allowed.

17. A writ in the nature of certiorari
is issued quashing the impugned orders
dated 16-10-1992, 29-04-1993 and 13-031994, as contained in Annexure Nos. 3,5
& 6 to the writ petition, with all
consequential benefits with liberty to pass
fresh
order
keeping
in
view
the
observations made in the body of the
judgment.

18. Since, the petitioner has already
retired from service, let Disciplinary
Authority take a decision, in accordance
to law, after taking into account the
objection filed by the petitioner to the
enquiry report as well as evidence led by
the parties, expeditiously say preferably
within a period of three months from the
date of receipt of certified copy of this
order. No cost.
---------

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 01.04.2011

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE SHRI NARAYAN SHUKLA,J.

Criminal Misc. Case No.1003 of 2011

Kulwant Singh

 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and another ...Opp.parties

Code of Criminal Procedure-Section 319summoning order-although Magistrate
failed to record the reason of its
satisfaction
for
summoning
the
applicant-bare perusal of statement of
witness-summoning
order-held-properso far direction of separate Trail not
supported by any reasonable ground-to
this extent-application partly allowed.

Held: Para 14 and 16

In
the
present
case
the
learned
Magistrate has shown his satisfaction to
summon the petitioner for trial on the
basis of the statement of witnesses,
being satisfied that the petitioner is
liable to be tried. Though the learned
Magistrate had to record his satisfaction
in specific words as to what higher
standard he has adopted to satisfy
himself for summoning the petitioner,
but he has failed to do so, however,
keeping
in
view
the
statement
of
witnesses, I am of the view that the
petitioner has rightly been summoned
for trial, therefore, I do not feel it
appropriate to interfere in the order
impugned only on the ground that the
learned Magistrate has failed to disclose
the material of his satisfaction for
consideration of the application and for
summoning the petitioner for trial.

However, in light of the aforesaid facts, I
am of the view that the case is not such
a stage as it permits the separation of
petitioner's trial from other co-accused,
therefore, the direction of the learned