Heera Prasad v. State Bank of India and Others

. Insofar as the enquiry report was concerned, the High Court took the view that the Enquiry Officer had allowed the appellant to participate in the proceedings as also to cross-examine wit- nesses and he had considered all relevant aspects on the record. H ](,4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS IJ993I 2 S.C.R. II will be recalled that the High Court by the judgment and order dated 8th July, 1988 had held that the earlier enquiry was not proper and in accordance with law and had quashed the order of dismissal dated 14th February, 1987 based thereon. It had directed that the appellant should face an enquiry whereat the prosecution would produce the witnesses it had examined on its behalf for cross-examination by the appellant. There­ after, the appellant could produce such witnesses as he desired. It is the submission of learned counsel on behalf of the appellant that the Enquiry Officer had in the second enquiry report relied upon the findings of the earlier enquiry, since quashed, and that he had not permitted the appellant to examine three necessary witnesses in support of his case. There bad, therefore, been ho real enquiry as contemplated by the High Court's order dated 8th July, 1988 and that, therefore, the dismissal order passed upon the basis of the second enquiry report should be quashed. Shri G. Ramaswamy, learner senior counsel for the respondent, D submitted that the Enquiry Officer had conducted the enquiry as directed by the High Court in its order dated 8th July, 1988, from the point of cross-examination of the respondent's witnesses onward. ··~· The enquiry report made by the Enquiry Officer subsequent to the order of the High Court dated 8th July, 1988 is entitled "Additional enquiry E report in respect of charges laid against Sbri Heera Prasad". It opens with ---Y the sentence, "This enquiry report is further to the enquily report already submitted by me in September 1986". It says that "the enquiry was reopened". It says, further, "As the charges have bee11 dealt with 011e by 011e i11 detail i11 my previous enquiry report I am co11fini11g this repon only to the F cross etami11atio11 of prosecutio11 witnesses as also examination/cross et· ami11atio11 of defence wit11esses." The report concludes thus: "After going through the proceedings, hearing the deposi­ tions made by the defence witnesses, and hearing the answers given by the prosecution witnesses, I find 110 reason to cltange 111y report as no exonerating fact came out during the enquiry instead it becomes a little darker particularly noting the fact .that at least three (03) of the witnesses cited by ~he charged officer himself refused to come for deposing before the enquiry for reasons best known to the charged officer/witnesses. As tire various HEERA PRASAD v. STATE BANK [BHARUCHA, J.] exhibits etc. were discussed and analysed by nie in nzy prvious repott, I ani not repeating the analysis once again in this report." 165 As aforesaid, the Enquiry Officer held nine of the eleven charges to be proved, one to be partly proved and one to be not proved. {The Emphasis )- is supplied). It is patent that the order dated 8th July, 1988 contemplated a fresh enquiry. At best, the examination-in-chief of the witnesses of the respon­ dent could be said to have been allowed to be incorporated in the second enquiry proceedings. The order certainly contemplated that the Enquiry Officer would apply his mind afresh to the evidence on record comprising the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of the respondent's wit- 'r -nesses and that of the appellant's witnesses. It is patent from the "Addi­ tional enquiry report" made by the Enquiry Officer that there has been no fresh arplication of mind. It was impermissible for the Enquiry Officer, in these circumstances, to have borne his previous Enquiry Report in mind D and to have confined the "Additional enquiry report" only to the cross­ examination of prosecution witnesses and the examin3tion and cross-ex­ amination of defence witnesses "as the charges have been dealt with one by one in detail in my previous enquiry report". It was also impermissible y- for him to have stated that "the findings of the previous enquiry report remain as they are". Having regard to the High Court's order dated 8th July, 1988, the Enquiry Officer was bound to consider the material on record afresh and not to take his earlier report into account and to say that he found "no reason to change that report". We are, in the circumstances, not satisfied that the appellant has had F a fair opportunity of presenting his case to an Enquiry Officer unbiased by :r--. pre-conceptions. Having regard to all that has transpired, we think that it is in the fitness of things that the order of dismissal dated 23rd October, 1989 should be quashed and another Enquiry Officer should be appointed by G the respondent who should allow the appellant the opportunity of examin- .)c. ing as his witnesses the three persons referred to by the earlier Enquiry Officer in the paragraph of the "Additional enquiry report" sub-titled "Conclusion". He should give to the respondent and the appellant the opportunity of a hearing. He should then apply his mind to the material H A on record without in any way being influenced by the earlier enquiry ~ reports, and make his own enquiry report accordingly. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The judgment and order under appeal are set aside. The writ petition is· allowed to the extent mentioned in the preceding paragraph. There shall be no order as to costs. V.P.R. Appeal allowed.