# [1972] 1 S.C.R. 755 - **Citation:** [1972] 1 S.C.R. 755 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 1971-09-17 - **Bench:** C. A. Vaidialingam, P. Jaganmotjan Reddy - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/1972-1-s-c-r-755-5450 - **Pages:** 25 ## Headnote Industrial LaW-Domestic ·enquiry-Defence witnesses not summbned-lf violative of principles of natural justice-Sastri Award, para. 521(10) (¢)-Scope of-Enquiry before Industrial Tribunal-Right of 1nanage111ent to justify dismissal even if do1nestic enquiry vitiated--Scopi! of. The first respondent was a Money Tester in the appellant bank and was deputed to supervise the remittance of unissuable notes from the branch of the appellant to the Notes Cancellation .and Verification Section df the branch of the Reserve Bank of India for destruction. On 1he allegation that, in order to avoid liability, he deliberately tore off the label containing his initials, on a packet of notes in which there was a shortage, the appellant ordered an inquiry. At the inquiry, the respon' dent examined two defence witnesses who were cashiers of the appellant from different branches. Some officers of Reserve Bank of India who gave evidence for the appellant refused to be cross examined and did not answer any question put to them in cross-examination. Notwithstanding the irregularity the inquiry proceeded and the inquiry officer submitted his report finding \he 'respondent guilty. The appellant however, ordered a de nova inquiry by another officer. During that inquiry, in which the first respondent took part under protest, he requested the inquiry officer to summon his two defence- witnesses who we'fe examined at the earlier enquiry and three others all employees of the appellant. The inquiry officer rejected the request regarding the three new witnesses on the ground that their evidence would not be relevant, and as regards the other two, he informed the respondent that he should arrange for produc- ·ing them at the inquiry at his own expense. The respondent pleaded that he already incurred a considerable expense in that regard, that the second inquiry was being held due to no fault of his, and therefore, he regretted ms- inability to have the witnesses summoned at his expense He also requested that in case the two witnesses were not summoned on his bei'ialf their evidence in the earlier enquiry may be treated as evidence in the second inquiry. But his plea was not accepted and the J#oceedings were conducted· v,rithout those witnesses being examined on.behalf of the respondent. The enquiry officer submitted his report finding the respondent guilty. The respondent was asked to show cause why the proposed punishment of discharge from service without notice in term<; of para. 521(lO)(c) of the Sastri Award should not be imposed. After considering his reply the appellant discharged him from se·rvice. The Central Government referred the dispute as to whether the appellant was justified in discharging the respondent from its service, to the Industrial Tribunal. "The Industrial Tribunal held that the respondent was not afforded a reasonable opportunity to produce evidence in his. de.fence. r destruction. According to the appellant the procedure· adopted for. such purpose was : the currency notes intended to be carried for destruction to the conc6rned section of the Reserve Bank of India, are examined counted· and then tied in bundles with a label or slip attached io each packet containing the particulars including the initials of the examining officer. Each packet is then recounted by the Money Tester alJd the latter puts his initial on the label or slip in token of his having done the recounting, the idea being, that if any . shortage is discovered subsequently, the person whose initials are found on the label or slip can be made liable to account for the de- €fficiency, and be asked to make good the same. Accordingly, when the money was tak.en by the first respondent on July 26, 1960 and -delivered to the Note Cancellation and Verification Section of the Reserve Bank of lndia Ludhiana, officials therein noted a shortage of Rs. 100/-in the packet containing Rs. IO/- denomination notes. Such a deficiency was noted in the packet to which was tacked the label bearing the initials of R. K. Jain. The shortage was pointed out to R. K. Jain by the offidals of the Reserve Bank of India, and the packet was handed back to the former to enable him to satisfy himself regarding the shortage .. R. K. Jain, uniter the guise of trying to linstitch the packet, tore off the label bearing his initals in spite of the protest n;ade by the officials of the Reserve Bank of India. The torn label was picked up and as it contained the initials of R. K. Jain, the officials of the Reserve Bank of India kept the torn pieces intact. Later on, a verbal inquiry was made by the Superintendent of the Reserve Bank of India and R. K. Jain admitted the shortage by his letter dated July 29, 1960. In that letter, addressed to the Reserve Bank of India. R. K. Jain stated that while counting the packet containing the Rs. 10 / - notes in which a shortage of Rs. 100/- was found, the slip was torn by him inadvertently and that he repasted the slip, after having confirmed the mutilation as desired by the officials of the Reserve Bank of India. Ambala City Branch of the appellant, addressed a letter dated August 13, 1960 to R. K. Jain regarding the reports made by the Currency Officer, Reserve Bank of India and the Superintendent fncharge of the Reserve Bank of India, Ludhiana, regarding the shortage of Rs. 100/-. In that letter, after referring to the counting of the packet by the first respondent and his tearing the label and repasting it, it is stated that the first respondent is responsible for the shortage as he has put his signature in the label in token of having recounted the packet and found it to be correct. It was further stated that the first respondent tore off the label because it contained his initials and this was done to / A c D E F G H A B c D E F G H STATE BANK v. R. K. JAIN (Vaidialingam, J.) 759 avoid any liability Qt' responsibility. These acts were stated to amount to gross misconduct and R. K. Jain was called upon to submit his explanation to the Head Office of the appellant. On August 16, 1960, the first respondent stared that the packet containing soiled notes was handled by several persons and counted more than once both m the Branch at Ambala as well as m the concerned section of the Reserve Bank of India, Ludhiana. After referring to the fact that the packet was given to him for recounting, as the officers asked him to hurry up the matter and to return the packet soon, and as there was a shortage of Rs. 100/-, he got confused and while handling the packet the covering slip tore off accidentally. This fact was explained to the officer of the Reserve Bank of India. He further stated that he did not destroy the label deliberately to avoid any liability. The first respondent has further stated that on the morning of July 26, 1960, ten notes of rupee one denomination were found short in a packet which was verified and found correct by the staff of the Reserve Bank of India. But later on the Supennten· dent of the Reserve Bank of India detected the shortage and this deficiency was made up by the staff of the Reserve Bank. The concerned staff of the Reserve Bank, who had made up the deficiency, was not well disposed towards him as he declined to accede to their request tv re1mburs<> them in the sum of Rs. IO/' which they had to make good due to their negligence. Therefore, the staff of the Reserve Bank in the concerned sect'.on has made a false allegation that the slip was deliber1tely torn off by the first respondent. R. K. Jain has further stated that he had put in nearly five years service and had a clean record and that the allegations made against him were false and frivolous. Not satisfied with the explanation given by· R. K. Jain, the appellant placed him under suspension with effect from September 6, 1960 pending an inquiry, which had been ordered against his conduct. By letter dated October 10, 1960, R. K. Jain was required to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him on the following charges : "(i) That during the course of examination of Ambala City Branch remittance of non-issuable notes sent to the Note Cancellation- and Verification Section of the Reserve Bank of India. Ludhiana, on 26th .J.:uly, 1960, under your supervision, 10 pieces of Rs. 10/- notes were found shQrt in one packet; the packet in question was recounted by you at the Branch. (ii) That when you were given the aforesaid packet for satisfying yourself regarding the shortage, 760 SUPREME COURT llEPORTS [1972) l S.C.ll. you tried to unstitch it and in the process tore off the label stitched on the packet despite instructions not to do so. On the label being examined by the Superintendent-in-Charge of the Reserve Bank's Note Cancellation Section it was revealed that the label bare your signature in token of your having c011nted the packet in question. It is, therefore, obvious that you tried to destroy the label in order to absolve yourself of the responsibility for the shortage in question." He was further directed to submit his explanation within 10 days of the rece!pt of the charge sheet. It will be seen from the above that the charges against R. K. Jain were twofold: (i) There was a shortage of 10 pieces of notes of Rs. 10 / - denomination in the packet which contained the label bearing his initial; and (ii) That he tried to destroy the label in order to absolve himself from the liability for the shortage. R. K. Jain sent his explanation to the charges by his letter dated October 18, 1960. While admitting that he was deputed on July 26, 1960 to remit unissuable noted in the concerned section of the R~serve Bank of India, Ludhiana, and the shortage being found and the packet being given to him for recounting, R. K. Jain has stated that as the packet had been handled by different persons in the offices of the two banks, the stitching had become loose. Therefore, when the p<1cket was being recounted by him, the slip tore off accidentally. As the staff of the Reserve Bank desired him to confirm the mutilation of the slip, he signed a letter which had been drafted by them on being assured that it was a routine procedure to be adopted. He denied that he deliberately tore off the slip bearing his initial to avoid responsibility for the shortage of currency notes. In turn he alleged that the staff of the Reserve Bank of India at Ludhiana, in the Note Cancellation and Verification Section was prejudiced against him as he had declined to accede to their request to pay them a sum of Rs. 10/- which they had to make good in respect of another packet. He denied the charges as baseless and as he had signed the letter of July 29, 1960, as drafted by the staff of the Reserve Bank of India, Ludhiana, he requested that the proceedings may be dropped. It is seen that there was a Departmental Inquiry _conducted by one B. P. Tiwari, an officer of the Appellant Branch at Ambala. The inquiry commenced on December 23, 1960 and the Inquiry Officer submitted his report on February 2, 1961 A B c D E F G H ' ' A B c !D ·E F STATE BANK v. R. K. JAIN (Vaididlingam, /,) 761 holding R. K. Jain guilty of the charges levelled against him. It is not necessary for us to advert to the findings in this report as a fresh inquiry was conducted later. It is only necessary to note that during the inquiry proceedings conducted by B. P. Tiwari, the first respondent had examined Pooran Singh and Sanjhi Ram, who were Cashiers at the Jullundur and Amritsar Branches respectively, of tile appellant Bank, as his detence witnesses. They had given evide;ice complaining about the behaviour of the staff of the Reserve Bank of India in the Note Cancellation Section particulars towards potdars of the State Bank of India. It is also seen that some officers of the Reserve Bank of India at Ludhiana in the Note Cancellation Section had given evidence for the appellant. Those officers surprisingly refused to be cross-examined by the first respondent during that inquiry. This resulted in the Deputy General Secretary of the State Bank of India's Staff Association sending a le>ter on December 24, 1960 to B. P. Tiwari pointing out that in the inquiry that was being conducted by him, the emp!o}oees of the Reserve Bank of India, at w)losa instance the charges had been framed against R. K. Jain, did not permit the delinquent to put them any question in cross-examination. In fact, it is averred that those officers of the Reserve Bank of India flatly refused t~ answer any questions that were put by R. K. Jain and hi~ representative and also declined to answer any questions put to them in cross-examination. It was alleged that the statements given by those gflicers of the Reserve Bank of India were oile ~ded and R. K. Jain and his representative had to sit as spectators during the inquiry. The inquiry was quite contrary to the procedure to be adooted in disciplinary action taken in respe~t of Bank employees. - Notwithstanding this grievance made on beh<\[f of the first respondent that the inquiry was opposed to all principles of natural justice and was not a proper inquiry, nothing seems to have been done by the appellant, as will be seen from the fact that the inquiry proceeded and the report. finding R. K. Jain guilty, was sent by B. P. Tiwari, so late as February 2, 1961. It is stated by the appellant that when the report of B. P. Tiwari was considered, the grievance made on behalf of R. K. Jain in the letter dated December 24, 1960 was taken into account and it was decided that the inquiry conducted by B. P. Tiwari, was not a proper one and hence a de novo inquiry was directed to be done by another Officer B. D. Sharma. It may be mentioned that there is no order of the appellant on record, in and by which they directed a de novo inquiry by B. D. Sharma. It appears that the new Inquiry Officer B. D. Sharma sent a communication dated May 27, 1961 to R. K. Jain that he will 762 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1972] 1 S.C,R. be .conduciing another inquiry against him on the charges originally framed and that the inquiry is fixed for June 14, 1961. On receipt of this communication the Deputy General Secretary of the State Bank of India Staff Association sent a reply on JU11e 10, 1961 to 13. D. Sharma stating that the Association was astonished about the proposal to have a second inquiry. The letter P!Oceeds to state that B. P. Tiwari conducted an inquiry about six months back and that though a report appears to have been sent by him to the Head Office, no copy of such a report ·had been furmshed to R. K. Jain. The Association has been making several inquiries from the Head Office regarding the matter, but the only reply that was received by it was that the matter was receiving the attention of the Head Office. The Staff Association further protested very strongly against the Bank's action in holding a fresh inquiry and that it was unjustified and amounted to an unfair labour practice. The Association further charged tl}e management that they were somehow or the other intent on finding R. K. Jain guilty of some charge or other and to punish him. On these grounds the Association made a request to cancel the second inquiry proposed to be held. A copy of this communication was also sent to the Secretary and Treasmer of the appellant Bank at New Delhi requesting him to look into the matter and stop the fresh inquiry proposed to be conducted by B. D. Sharma on June 14, 1961. But the Inquiry Officer, by his letter dated June 13, 1961 informed R. K. Jain that the inquiry will be held on June 14, 1961 as already intimated. Again on June 14, 1961 the Deputy General Secretary of the Staff Association sent a communication to the Inquiry Officer that the Head Office has not informed R. K. Jain that a fresh inquiry is proposed !o be conducted and that in fact even the details of the inquiry relating to the one conducted by B. P. Tiwari have not been furnished to him. The Association again requested the Inqmry Officer to stop holding the inquiry and furnish R. K. Jain with a copy of the previous inquiry proceedings. We will have to refer to certain further correspondence that passed between the Inquiry Officer and the Staff Association on behalf of R. K. Jain. It is enough to state that R. K. Jain, when he found that the inquiry was being proceeded with consented iD take part under protest. He made· a request to the Inquiry Officer to summon five witnesses who are employees of the appellant Bank. The Inquiry Officer rejected the request of R. K. Jain regarding three of those witnesses on the ground that their evidence will not be useful for the inquiry. Regarding the two others, the Inquiry Officer informed R. K. Jain that the latter should arrange for producing those witnesses at the inquiry at his expenses. R. K. Jain pleaded that those witnesses were A B c D E F G H A B c D E F G H STATE BANK v. R. K. JAIN (Vaidialingam, J.) 763 examined by him in the previous proceedings at his expense and that he has already incurred considerable expense in that regard. The second inquiry was being held due to no fault of his and therefore he regretted his inability to have them summoned at his expense. But this plea was not accepted by the Inquiry Officer and the proceedings were conducted without those witnesses being examined on behalf of R. K. Jain. The inquiry proceedings were conducted by B. D. Sharma between June 14, 1961 and July 12, 1962. B. D. Sharma sent his report to the Head Office on August 23, 1962. In the said report the Inquiry Officer found that R. K. Jain was responsible for the shortage of the currency notes and that he deliberately tore off the slip bearing his initials in the packet where the deficiency was noted and this was done with the intention of destroying evidence of his having recounted. the packet. The findings are by and large based upon the evidence of the officers of the Reserve Bank of India, who in the previous inquiry had refused to be cross-examined. On receipt of the report, the Superintendent of the Ambala City Branch of the appellant by his Jetter dated March 4, 1963 intimated R. K. Jain that the Inquiry Officer B. D. Sharma has found him guilty of the charges framed against him. It was further stated that the appellant has come to the decision that R. K. Jain should be discharged from service of the Bank without notice in terms of paragr:iph 521 (lO)(c) of the Sastry Award read with paragraph 18.28 of the Desai Award. R. K. Jain was desired to show cause within a week why the proposed punishment should not be imposed. He was also informed that he would be given a hearing before final orders are passed, if he so desired. The first respondent sent a reply on March 28, 1963 pleading innocence. In •the said reply he alleged that the first inquiry by B. P. Tiwari was conducted contrary to all principles of natural justice. The second inquiry by B. D. Sharma was also conducted in voilation of the principles of natural justice and that he was not given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. He made a grievance that his request to have certain witnesses summoned for being cross-examined on his behalf was arbitrarily rejected by the Inquiry Officer. He further alleged •that his representative was not permitted to put the necessary que,tions to 1he officers of the Reserve Bank, who gave evidence before the Inquiry Officer. In· particular he referred to the fact tha:t his request to summon two witnesses Pooran Singh and Sanjhi Ram, who were in the emnloy of the appellant was arbitrarily rejected bv the lnquirv Officer. Apart from pleading all these facts, he alleged that ~he findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer were opposed to the evidence Oil' record. The sum and substance of the grievance of R. K. Jain· 76• SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1972] 1 S,C.ll. was tJ;tat ;the inquiry con~uc~ed by B. D. Shanna was contrary to all pnnc1ples of nat?ral 1.ust1ce; and that he was not given a fair -0pportumty for pl~cmg his defence before the Inquiry Officer and the whole proceedmgs were not conducted in a judicial manner. The Superintendent of the appel!ant branch at Ambala, by his order dated October 1, 1963 discharged R. K. Jain from the ser- ".ice of ~ BaJ!k "'.ithout notice, on the ground that his explanation contamed m his letter dated March 28, 1963 was unsatisfactory and cannot be accepted. The first respondent filed an appeal on November 8, 1963 before the Deputy Secretary and Treasurer ·Of the appellant Bank at New Delhi. The Appellate Authority 'however, rejected the appeal on January 18, 1964. ' We have given elaborately the circumstances leading to the order of discharge passed by the appellant Bank in order to appreciate the background which led to a reference being made by the ·Central Government ito the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication. The Cell'tral Government by its order dated &!ptember 19, 1966 referred for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal, Chandigarh ·the following dispute : "Whether the management of the State Bank of India was justified in discharging from service Shri R. K. Jain, Money Tester at Ambala City Branch, with effect from !st October, 1963? If not, to what relief is the emplo}\!e entitled?" In the written statement filed by the workman, after setting out the various fac1ts mentioned earlier, it was averred that the Reserve )lank employees who appeared before B. P. Tiwari d·~clined to be cross-examined by the workman and 1hat the second inquiry by B. D. Sharma was conducted in spite oJ' protests made ~Y the workman. It was pleaded that the workman never wanted the second inquiry. He further alleged that the inquiry conducted by B. D. Sharma was in voihrtion of the principles of natural justice inasmuch as he was denied an opportunity of having certain witnesses summoned, who were in the employ of the appellant, to give evide:ice. The workman also criticised the manw~r in which the inquiry proceedings were conducted by B. D. Shanna. The findings recorded by B. D. Shanna were also attacked as being opposed to the evidence on record. In particular, the workman made a grievance that he was denied the opportunity to summon Pooran Sillj\h, Cashier at Jullundur Branch and Sanjhi Ram. ·Cashi.er .at Amritsar Branch of the appellant Bank, who h~d appeared as his witness.es in '!he inquiry .conducted by B. P. Tiwad. He had incurred a lot of expense in 1hat regard and .the first inquiry ·was scraped for no fault of his and the second inquiry was ordered A B c D F f G A B c D F G H STATE BANK v. R. K. JAIN (Vaidialingam, J.) 765 by the management of their own accord. All these matters have caused considerable prejudice in placing his defence before the Inquiry Officer. The appellant Bank, in its wrrtten statement admi1ted that during the inquiry conducted by B. P. Tiwari the employees of the Reserve Bank at Ludhiana, who gave evidence did not allow themselves to be cross-examined by th>~ representative of R. K. Jain and, therefore, the said inquiry Wl\ll not proper. It was because of the fact that t~e w~kman did not _havl'. a fair and proper inquiry conducted agamst him, the second mqmry was directed to be conducted by B. D. Sharma. The Bank further averred that full opportunity was given to the workman to place his defence and facilities were provided for arranging to get any witnesses 1hat he wanted to produce before the Inquiry Officer. The Bank support cd the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer. The Bank further averred that the Agents at the Jullundur and Amritsar Branches, were permitted to release Pooran Singh and Sanjhi Ram, if thcv were willing to give evidence at Ambala at their expense on behalf of R. K. Jain. TI1e Bank finally pleaded that the action taken against R. K. Jain was perfectly justified and it was in accordance with the procedure indicated in the Sas'try Award. The Industrial Tribunal, by its award dated April 7, 1967, held that R. K. Jain was nat afforded a reasonable opportunity to produce evidence in his defence during the inquiry conducted by B. D. Sharma and that 1the management was not justified in terminating his services, on the basis of the report of the Inquiry Officer. The Tribunal has referred to 1he evidence given by the Inquiry Officer R.W. 1, as well as the Agent of the appellant Bank R.W. 2, who passed the order of discharge. It referred to 1the ad~ mission made by the Inquiry Officer regarding the request made by R. K. Jain to have the two Cashiers Pooran Singh and Sanjhi Ram examined on his behalf and that request was not acceded to on the ground that it was for the workman concerned to produce them for examination, if he so desired. According to the Tribunal the workman had been put to a considerable expense in examining those witnesses in 1he previous inquiry held by B. P. Tiwari, which had to be abandoned due to no fault of the workman. The Tribunal fu~ther found that the workman did not want the second inquiry. Under those circumstances, when a fresh inquiry was being conducted by the management, it is the view of the Tribunal that it was quite unreasonable on their part to expect a poor workman to be pirt to unnecessary and additional expense for no fault of his. The Tribunal also held that the inquiry was closed in spite of repeated requests made by the workman for summoning the witllllsaes and that eVOll the statement of R. K. Jain was not recorded after the evidetice on the side of the manage!Ill!nt was closed. For 766 SUPREME ·coURT REPORTS [1972] l s.c.R. all these reasons, the Tribunal held that the inquiry proceedings were vitiated by violation of the principles of natural justice and. therefore the inquiry was not valid. The learned Solicitor-General on behalf of the appellant has urged •three contentions ; (1) The Tribunal had no jurisdiction to set asid.~ the order of the management discharging the workman from service when there is no finding that the appellant had acted ma/a fide or with a view •to victimise the employee; (2) Even if it is held 'that the evidence is not sufficient to justify th·~ order of discharge, nevertheless under the last part of paragraph 521. cl. (10), sub-clause (c) of the Sastry Award, the appellar.t has full jurisdiction to pass the order of discharge; and (3) Even assuming that the domestic inquiry conducted by the Bank was in any manner vitiated, the Industrial Tribunal erred in law in not ,giving an opportunity to the management to adduce evidence before it to establish the validity of the order of discharge. Mr. M. K. Ramamurthi, learw.od counsel for the first respondent, strenuously contested the position taken on behalf of the appellant. The counsel urged that the finding of the Tribunal that the second inquiry was not conducted at the instance of the workman is correct. Though, normally it is the duty of the party, who wants to have witnesses examined, to produce •them before the Inquiry Officer, yet in the particular circumstances of this case and in view of what happened in •the inquiry conducted by B. P. Tiwari, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the Inquiry Officer's refusal to have the two Cashiers, namely, Pooran Singh and Sanjhi Ram produced for giving evidence amounrs to a denial of a reasonable opportunity to the workman in placing his defence before the Tribunal. The counsel further urged that the last part of Sub-Cl. ( c) of Cl. 10 of Paragraph 521 does not apply and it has not been p~~aded by the appellant. The counsel further pointed out that the appellant, as will be seen from the written statement filed before the Tribunal, was prepared to justify the order of discharge solely on the basis of domestic inquiry and it never offered to adduce evideno~ before the Tribunal dehors the domestic mquiry. The appellant, not having asked for an opportunity to adduce evidence before the Tribunal, and not having even raised such a point in the Special Leave Petition, cannot be allowed. to urge, for foe first 'tim·~ in the appeal that the Tribunal should have given an opportunity to adduce evidence to justify the order of discharge. We will now consider the contentions of the learned Solicitor in the order stated above. Before we do so it is necessary to refer •to the relevant provisions in the Award of the All India Industrial Tribunal (Bank Disputes), which is known as the Sastry Award. Chapter XXV deals with the method of recruitment, conditions of service, tennination of employment, disciplinary action etc. Section A B c D E F G H A B c D E G II STATE BANK Y. R. K. JAIN (Vaidia/ingam, J.) 767 1 deals with the method of recruitment; and s. 2 with 'the tenm and conditions of service. Section 3, in which Paragraph 521 occurs, deals with the procedure for taking• disciplinary action. Clauses (9) and (10) of Paragraph 521 are as follows: "521 : A person against whom disciplinary action is proposed or likely rto be taken should, in the first instance, be informed of -the particulars of the charge against him; he should have a proper opportunity to give his explanation as to such particulars. Final orck!rs should be passed after due consideration of all the relevant facts and circumstances. Wi'th this object in view we give the following directions :- • * • • (9) When it is decided to take any disciplinary action against an employee such decision shall be communicated to him within three days thereof. (10) The procedure in such cases shall be as follows : (a) An employee against whom disciplinary action is proposed or likely to be taken shall be given a chargesheet clearly setting forth the circumstances appearing against him and a dat·~ shall be fixed for enquiry, sufficient time being given to him and a date shall be fixed for enquiry, sufficienftime being given to him to enable him to prepare and give his explana!tion as also to produce any evidence that he may wish to tender in his defence. He shall be permitted to apP'~ar before the officer conducting the enquiry, to crossexamine any witness on whose evidence the charge rests and to examine witnesses and produce other evideno~ in his defence. He shall also be permitted to be defended by a representative of a registered union of bank employees or, with the bank's permission, by a lawyer. He shall also be given a hearing as regards the natum of the proposed punishment in case any charge is established against him. (b) Pending such inquiry he may be suspended, but if on the conclusion of the enquiry it is decided to take no action against him he shall be deemed to have been on duty and shall be entitfod to the full wages and allowances and to all other privileges for 'the period of suspension; and if some punishment other than dismissal is inflicted the 768 SUPREME. COURT REPORTS [1972] 1 S.C.R. whole or a part of the period of suspension, may, at the