Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from disciplinary proceedings initiated by a nationalized bank against an employee who faced charges of misconduct while posted as ALPMO at Amar Colony, New Delhi branch. A charge sheet was issued on 24 September 1991, and after the employee denied the charges, a departmental enquiry was conducted. The enquiry officer submitted a report holding that the charges were established. The employee then made representations and objections, contending that he had not been given proper opportunity to lead documentary and oral evidence. The notified disciplinary authority considered the representation and, by order dated 29 April 1994, decided to order a fresh enquiry "to provide every opportunity" to the employee. It appointed a new enquiry officer, fixed the date of commencement as 26 May 1994, and directed completion within a prescribed schedule. The employee challenged this order in a writ petition before the Delhi High Court. The High Court, after hearing submissions, noted that the only question addressed was from what stage the de novo enquiry should commence. It held that since the department's evidence had already been completed and some defence evidence had also been recorded, the enquiry need not start from the very beginning. The new enquiry officer was directed to give the employee an opportunity to lead his documentary and oral evidence, consider any request for recalling witnesses for further cross-examination, and then decide the matter afresh. The bank appealed to the Supreme Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, contending that the High Court had no warrant to confine the enquiry to the recording of the employee's evidence alone and that no reasons were given. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the High Court had given reasons for its directions and that the view taken was a possible view. Since another view might also be possible, it was not advisable to interfere under Article 136. The Court emphasized that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 136, it would not substitute its own view merely because a different view could be taken. The operative directions of the High Court were thus upheld, and the parties were left to bear their own costs. This judgment reinforces the principle that disciplinary authorities have discretion in ordering fresh enquiries but that such orders are subject to judicial review; courts can mould the relief to ensure fairness without necessitating a full rehearing where evidence has already been recorded.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Disciplinary Enquiry - De Novo Enquiry Scope - Constitution of India, Article 136 - High Court directed that fresh enquiry after acceptance of employee's grievance need not begin ab initio; new Enquiry Officer to allow employee to lead documentary/oral evidence and consider recalling witnesses for cross-examination; Supreme Court held this a possible view and declined interference under Article 136 - Held that where department's evidence already completed and some defence evidence recorded, de novo enquiry can be limited to employee's defence and further cross-examination (Paras 1-4) B) Constitutional Law - Special Leave Petition - Interference under Article 136 - When High Court view possible, no interference; orders of disciplinary authority can be superseded if reasoned - Supreme Court found High Court gave reasons for its directions and the view taken was a possible view; even if another view possible, not advisable to interfere under Article 136 - Held that appeal dismissed and High Court order upheld (Paras 1-4)
Issue of Consideration
From which stage of the proceedings should the de novo departmental enquiry commence, and whether the Supreme Court should interfere under Article 136 with the High Court's direction limiting the scope of the fresh enquiry.
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. High Court order upheld. The fresh enquiry to proceed as directed: new Enquiry Officer to give opportunity to employee to lead documentary and oral evidence, consider recalling any witness for further cross-examination, then decide afresh. No costs.
Law Points
- Article 136 interference limited to possible view
- de novo enquiry may be limited to defence evidence
- natural justice satisfied by opportunity to lead evidence and cross-examine
- disciplinary authority's discretion subject to judicial review
- High Court can mould relief to ensure fairness without full rehearing
