B. Viswanatha Reddy S/O. Narayana Reddy Vs. Andhra Pragathi Grameena Bank Rep. by Its Chairman, - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- what remains to be seen is as to whether pinki died an un-natural death within seven years of her marriage and whether her death was attributable to the demand of dowry and further whether she was dealt with cruelty soon before her death. if these ingredients are proved by the prosecution then the conviction of the accused under section 304b, ipc will be complete.[para 9] the question is, in the absence of corpus delicti, could it be presumed that the accused persons alone were responsible for the death of pinki. we must hasten to add here that the accused persons have already been acquitted of the murder charge. [para 9] it is clear that pinki's death was caused because of the burns and not in the normal circumstances. the finding of the trial court and the appellate court in that behalf is correct. for this reason we are not impressed by the argument of the learned counsel that in the absence of corpus delicti, the conviction could not stand. [para10] it is clear that the prosecution has not only proved the offence under section 304b, ipc with the aid of section 113b, indian evidence act but also the offence under section 201, ipc. [para 15] held: we have gone through the judgments of the trial court as well as the appellate court carefully and we find that both the courts have fully considered all the aspects of this matter. we, therefore, find nothing wrong with the judgments and confirm the same. the appeal is, therefore, dismissed.[para 16]orderg. rohini, j.1. the petitioner herein is working as clerk-cum-cashier in the 1st respondent bank at kalasamudram branch. by order dated 17.01.2008 passed by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner was placed under suspension pending enquiry into the alleged serious irregularities committed by him at kalasamudram branch. subsequently, a charge-sheet dated 1.3.2008 was issued by the 2nd respondent proposing to initiate disciplinary action against the petitioner under regulation 38(ii) of andhra pragati grameena bank (officers and employees) service regulations, 2006. the petitioner submitted his written statement of defence denying the allegations levelled in the charge-sheet. thereafter, an enquiry officer has been appointed to enquire into the allegations in the charge-sheet and while the enquiry is under progress, the present writ petition has been filed seeking a declaration that the said enquiry is arbitrary, illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice on the ground of the respondent's failure to produce the complainants for cross-examination apart from non-furnishing a copy of the report of the investigating officer, who also deposed as a witness on behalf of the management.2. i have heard the learned counsel for both the parties.3. it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner/delinquent is entitled to insist upon production of the complainants to ascertain the contents of their complaints and also to verify as to whether they are the authors of the complaints or not. it is also contended that the respondents are bound to supply a copy of the investigation report particularly when the investigation officer has been examined as a witness on behalf of the management. in support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decisions of the supreme court in hardwari lal v. state of u.p. : (1999) 8 scc 582 and deepak puri v. state of haryana : (2000) 10 scc 373.4. in the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is contended that since the investigation report is not a part of the enquiry and at any rate since the said report will not be relied upon in the enquiry, it is not necessary to furnish a copy of the same to the petitioner. so far as production of the complainants is concerned, it is stated that the management is willing to present the complainants as witnesses provided they are willing to come before the enquiry forum.5. while reiterating the stand taken in the counter-affidavit, the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the interference by this court at the interlocutory stage of the disciplinary proceedings is not warranted on any ground whatsoever.6. as could be seen from the charge-sheet, the allegations against the petitioner included misappropriation of amounts remitted by the self-help groups towards installments of their respective loan amounts. it was also specifically alleged that the petitioner had misappropriated the amounts remitted by the self-help groups towards the installment of their loan accounts by making entries in the loan pass books without accounting for the amounts in the books of accounts. the names of the self-help groups, the loan account numbers and the particulars of the amounts allegedly remitted by them have been furnished in detail in the articles of charges. during the enquiry, the presenting officer submitted the list of exhibits and list of witnesses that are relied upon by the bank and the copies of the same have also been furnished to the petitioner. though the copies of the complaints allegedly made by the members of the self-help groups were furnished, the copy of the investigation report on the basis of which the disciplinary proceedings were initiated was not furnished to the petitioner. the petitioner's request to supply a copy of the said investigation report was rejected by the respondents by letter dated 18.3.2008 on the ground that it was a privileged document. subsequently, the investigating officer himself deposed as m.w.1 on behalf of the management. the petitioner again made representations dated 5.8.2009 and 19.10.2009 requesting to furnish a copy of the report of the inspection of kalasamudram branch said to have been conducted by m.w.1 stating that the said report was essential to disprove the charge. however the respondents failed to respond and aggrieved by the same the present writ petition is filed.7. whereas the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that non-supply of the said document caused serious prejudice to the petitioner vitiating the entire enquiry proceedings, the learned counsel for the respondents sought to justify the impugned action contending that the bank is not bound to furnish a copy of the investigation report to the petitioner since the same will not be relied upon by the enquiry officer for coming to a final conclusion. in support of the said contention, the learned counsel for the respondents cited krishna chandra tandon v. union of india : (1974) 4 scc 374 : air 1974 sc 1589 wherein it was held that the documents of the nature of inter-departmental communications have no importance unless the enquiry officer wants to rely on them for his conclusions.8. the law is well-settled that non-supply of documents relied upon by the enquiry officer to arrive at his conclusion causes serious prejudice to the delinquent officer facing the charges. in moni shankar v. union of india : (2008) 3 scc 484 the supreme court held:the departmental proceeding is a quasi judicial one. although the provisions of the evidence act are not applicable in the said proceeding, principles of natural justice are required to be complied with. the court exercising power of judicial review are entitled to consider as to whether while inferring commission of misconduct on the part of a delinquent officer relevant piece of evidence has been taken into consideration and irrelevant facts have been excluded therefrom. inference on facts must be based on evidence which meet the requirements of legal principles. the tribunal was, thus, entitled to arrive at its own conclusion on the premise that the evidence adduced by the department, even if it is taken on its face value to be correct in its entirety, meet the requirements of burden of proof, namely preponderance of probability. if on such evidences, the test of the doctrine of proportionality has not been satisfied, the tribunal was within its domain to interfere. we must place on record that the doctrine of unreasonableness is giving way to the doctrine of proportionality.9. however the law is equally settled that mere non-supply of a document which is not relevant to the charges does not by itself vitiate the enquiry proceedings. having considered the said question, the supreme court in chandrama tewari v. union of india : 1987 (supp.) scc 518 held as under:however, it is not necessary that each and every document must be supplied to the delinquent government servant facing the charges instead only material and relevant documents are necessary to be supplied to him. if a document even though mentioned in the memo of charges is not relevant to the charges or if it is not referred to or relied upon by the enquiry officer or the punishing authority in holding the charges proved against the government servant, no exception can be taken to the validity of the proceedings or the order. if the document is not used against the party charged the ground of violation of principles of natural justice cannot successfully be raised. the violation of principles of natural justice arises only when a document, copy of which may not have been supplied to the party charged when demanded is used in recording finding of guilt against him. on a careful consideration of the authorities cited on behalf of the appellant we find that the obligation to supply copies of a documents is confined only to material and relevant documents and the enquiry would be vitiated only if the nonsupply of material and relevant documents when demanded may have caused prejudice to the delinquent officer.10. it is further explained by the supreme court in syndicate bank v. venkatesh gururao kurati : air 2006 sc 3542 as under:even then, the non-supply of those documents prejudice the case of delinquent officer must be established by the delinquent officer. it is well settled law that the doctrine of principles of natural justice are not embodied rules. it cannot be put in a straitjacket formula. it depends upon the facts and circumstance of each case. to sustain the allegation of violation of principles of natural justice, one must establish that prejudice has been caused to him for non-observance of principles of natural justice.11. in the light of the settled legal position, the question that requires consideration is whether the non-supply of the document sought by the petitioner in the present case has resulted in violation of principles of natural justice.12. as noticed above, the disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner on the basis of the inspection of kalasamudram branch from 5.1.2008 to 12.1.2008 and the verification of records of the self-help groups from 12.1.2008 to 14.1.2008 and 16.1.2008 which allegedly revealed discrepancies in the operation of the loan accounts of the self-help groups. on behalf of the management, one b. sudhakar reddy, who conducted the inspection of kalasamudram branch and received the alleged complaints was examined as m.w.1. in his evidence, m.w.1 stated that he had inspected kalasamudram branch from 05.01.2008 to 12.01.2008 and during the inspection since he grew suspicious about the operation of self-help group loan accounts, as per the advice of the head office, he verified the records of all self-help groups from 12.01.2008 to 14.01.2008 and 16.01.2008 and found discrepancies in 15 accounts.13. the fact that m.w.1 submitted a report of the said inspection of kalasamudram branch and the records of self-help groups is not disputed by the respondents. in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent-bank, it is also admitted that the charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner based on the documents/records seized from kalasamudram branch and the complaints given by the members of the self-help groups in which loans were availed by them. however, the respondents declined to supply a copy of the said inspection report to the petitioner. in their letter dated 18.03.2008 it was contended by the respondents that it is a privileged document and therefore it cannot be furnished to the petitioner. however the fact that the said document is only an inspection report pointing out certain alleged irregularities on the part of the petitioner is not in dispute. in the circumstances, i am unable to understand how the said document can be termed as a privileged document so as to reject the request of the petitioner to furnish a copy. it is also relevant to notice that in the counter-affidavit a new plea has been taken by the respondents stating that the said investigation report has no importance since the enquiry officer himself does not want to rely upon the same for his conclusions and therefore copy of the same need not be furnished.14. i do not find any substance even in the said contention. since the enquiry report of m.w.1 is the basis for the proceedings initiated against the petitioner, it cannot be said that the document has no relevance. it is also pertinent to notice that the inspection of the records of the self-help groups was held in the absence of the petitioner. admittedly, the disciplinary proceedings were initiated on the basis of the inspection report of m.w.1 who verified the records of self-help groups. in the circumstances, the mere examination of m.w.1 as a management witness does not serve the purpose. even though the enquiry officer does not rely upon the said report to arrive at his conclusions, the same being an essential document to meet the allegations in the charge-sheet, the respondents are bound to furnish a copy of the same to the petitioner. the importance of the said document for the defence of the petitioner is apparent from the fact that the entire disciplinary proceedings are based upon the said inspection of m.w.1. in the circumstances, unless a copy of the investigation report of m.w.1 is furnished, the petitioner will not be in a position to prepare his own defence. hence, it is not correct to contend that the document in question is not a relevant document. the petitioner cannot be denied such an opportunity even on the ground that he has already cross-examined m.w.1.15. so far as the examination of the complainants is concerned/it is for the respondent-bank to decide as to whom they want to examine to establish the charges. hence, it is not necessary for this court to express any opinion on the said issue at this stage and no mandamus as such can be issued to the respondent to produce the complainants. as a matter of fact, in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that the respondent-bank is willing to produce the complainants provided they are available.16. for the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to furnish a copy of the report of m.w.1's inspection of kalasamudram branch as well as the accounts of the self-help groups from 5.1.2008 to 16.1.2008 and then proceed with further enquiry.17. writ petition is accordingly disposed of. no costs.

Judgment:
ORDER

G. Rohini, J.

1. The petitioner herein is working as Clerk-cum-Cashier in the 1st respondent Bank at Kalasamudram Branch. By order dated 17.01.2008 passed by the 2nd respondent, the petitioner was placed under suspension pending enquiry into the alleged serious irregularities committed by him at Kalasamudram Branch. Subsequently, a charge-sheet dated 1.3.2008 was issued by the 2nd respondent proposing to initiate disciplinary action against the petitioner under Regulation 38(ii) of Andhra Pragati Grameena Bank (Officers and Employees) Service Regulations, 2006. The petitioner submitted his written statement of defence denying the allegations levelled in the charge-sheet. Thereafter, an Enquiry Officer has been appointed to enquire into the allegations in the charge-sheet and while the enquiry is under progress, the present writ petition has been filed seeking a declaration that the said enquiry is arbitrary, illegal and violative of the principles of natural justice on the ground of the respondent's failure to produce the complainants for cross-examination apart from non-furnishing a copy of the report of the investigating officer, who also deposed as a witness on behalf of the Management.

2. I have heard the learned Counsel for both the parties.

3. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner/delinquent is entitled to insist upon production of the complainants to ascertain the contents of their complaints and also to verify as to whether they are the authors of the complaints or not. It is also contended that the respondents are bound to supply a copy of the investigation report particularly when the investigation officer has been examined as a witness on behalf of the Management. In support of his submissions, the learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in Hardwari Lal v. State of U.P. : (1999) 8 SCC 582 and Deepak Puri v. State of Haryana : (2000) 10 SCC 373.

4. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is contended that since the investigation report is not a part of the enquiry and at any rate since the said report will not be relied upon in the enquiry, it is not necessary to furnish a copy of the same to the petitioner. So far as production of the complainants is concerned, it is stated that the management is willing to present the complainants as witnesses provided they are willing to come before the enquiry forum.

5. While reiterating the stand taken in the counter-affidavit, the learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that the interference by this Court at the interlocutory stage of the disciplinary proceedings is not warranted on any ground whatsoever.

6. As could be seen from the charge-sheet, the allegations against the petitioner included misappropriation of amounts remitted by the Self-Help Groups towards installments of their respective loan amounts. It was also specifically alleged that the petitioner had misappropriated the amounts remitted by the Self-Help Groups towards the installment of their loan accounts by making entries in the loan pass books without accounting for the amounts in the books of accounts. The names of the Self-Help Groups, the loan account numbers and the particulars of the amounts allegedly remitted by them have been furnished in detail in the articles of charges. During the enquiry, the Presenting Officer submitted the list of exhibits and list of witnesses that are relied upon by the Bank and the copies of the same have also been furnished to the petitioner. Though the copies of the complaints allegedly made by the members of the Self-Help Groups were furnished, the copy of the investigation report on the basis of which the disciplinary proceedings were initiated was not furnished to the petitioner. The petitioner's request to supply a copy of the said investigation report was rejected by the respondents by letter dated 18.3.2008 on the ground that it was a privileged document. Subsequently, the investigating officer himself deposed as M.W.1 on behalf of the Management. The petitioner again made representations dated 5.8.2009 and 19.10.2009 requesting to furnish a copy of the report of the inspection of Kalasamudram Branch said to have been conducted by M.W.1 stating that the said report was essential to disprove the charge. However the respondents failed to respond and aggrieved by the same the present Writ Petition is filed.

7. Whereas the learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that non-supply of the said document caused serious prejudice to the petitioner vitiating the entire enquiry proceedings, the learned Counsel for the respondents sought to justify the impugned action contending that the Bank is not bound to furnish a copy of the investigation report to the petitioner since the same will not be relied upon by the Enquiry Officer for coming to a final conclusion. In support of the said contention, the learned Counsel for the respondents cited Krishna Chandra Tandon v. Union of India : (1974) 4 SCC 374 : AIR 1974 SC 1589 wherein it was held that the documents of the nature of inter-departmental communications have no importance unless the enquiry officer wants to rely on them for his conclusions.

8. The law is well-settled that non-supply of documents relied upon by the Enquiry Officer to arrive at his conclusion causes serious prejudice to the delinquent officer facing the charges. In Moni Shankar v. Union of India : (2008) 3 SCC 484 the Supreme Court held:

The departmental proceeding is a quasi judicial one. Although the provisions of the Evidence Act are not applicable in the said proceeding, principles of natural justice are required to be complied with. The Court exercising power of judicial review are entitled to consider as to whether while inferring commission of misconduct on the part of a delinquent officer relevant piece of evidence has been taken into consideration and irrelevant facts have been excluded therefrom. Inference on facts must be based on evidence which meet the requirements of legal principles. The Tribunal was, thus, entitled to arrive at its own conclusion on the premise that the evidence adduced by the department, even if it is taken on its face value to be correct in its entirety, meet the requirements of burden of proof, namely preponderance of probability. If on such evidences, the test of the doctrine of proportionality has not been satisfied, the Tribunal was within its domain to interfere. We must place on record that the doctrine of unreasonableness is giving way to the doctrine of proportionality.

9. However the law is equally settled that mere non-supply of a document which is not relevant to the charges does not by itself vitiate the enquiry proceedings. Having considered the said question, the Supreme Court in Chandrama Tewari v. Union of India : 1987 (Supp.) SCC 518 held as under:

However, it is not necessary that each and every document must be supplied to the delinquent government servant facing the charges instead only material and relevant documents are necessary to be supplied to him. If a document even though mentioned in the memo of charges is not relevant to the charges or if it is not referred to or relied upon by the enquiry officer or the punishing authority in holding the charges proved against the government servant, no exception can be taken to the validity of the proceedings or the order. If the document is not used against the party charged the ground of violation of principles of natural justice cannot successfully be raised. The violation of principles of natural justice arises only when a document, copy of which may not have been supplied to the party charged when demanded is used in recording finding of guilt against him. On a careful consideration of the authorities cited on behalf of the appellant we find that the obligation to supply copies of a documents is confined only to material and relevant documents and the enquiry would be vitiated only if the nonsupply of material and relevant documents when demanded may have caused prejudice to the delinquent officer.

10. It is further explained by the Supreme Court in Syndicate Bank v. Venkatesh Gururao Kurati : AIR 2006 SC 3542 as under:

Even then, the non-supply of those documents prejudice the case of delinquent officer must be established by the delinquent officer. It is well settled law that the doctrine of principles of natural justice are not embodied rules. It cannot be put in a straitjacket formula. It depends upon the facts and circumstance of each case. To sustain the allegation of violation of principles of natural justice, one must establish that prejudice has been caused to him for non-observance of principles of natural justice.

11. In the light of the settled legal position, the question that requires consideration is whether the non-supply of the document sought by the petitioner in the present case has resulted in violation of principles of natural justice.

12. As noticed above, the disciplinary proceedings have been initiated against the petitioner on the basis of the inspection of Kalasamudram Branch from 5.1.2008 to 12.1.2008 and the verification of records of the Self-Help Groups from 12.1.2008 to 14.1.2008 and 16.1.2008 which allegedly revealed discrepancies in the operation of the loan accounts of the Self-Help Groups. On behalf of the Management, one B. Sudhakar Reddy, who conducted the inspection of Kalasamudram Branch and received the alleged complaints was examined as M.W.1. In his evidence, M.W.1 stated that he had inspected Kalasamudram Branch from 05.01.2008 to 12.01.2008 and during the inspection since he grew suspicious about the operation of Self-Help Group loan accounts, as per the advice of the Head Office, he verified the records of all Self-Help Groups from 12.01.2008 to 14.01.2008 and 16.01.2008 and found discrepancies in 15 accounts.

13. The fact that M.W.1 submitted a report of the said inspection of Kalasamudram Branch and the records of Self-Help Groups is not disputed by the respondents. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent-Bank, it is also admitted that the charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner based on the documents/records seized from Kalasamudram Branch and the complaints given by the members of the Self-Help Groups in which loans were availed by them. However, the respondents declined to supply a copy of the said inspection report to the petitioner. In their letter dated 18.03.2008 it was contended by the respondents that it is a privileged document and therefore it cannot be furnished to the petitioner. However the fact that the said document is only an inspection report pointing out certain alleged irregularities on the part of the petitioner is not in dispute. In the circumstances, I am unable to understand how the said document can be termed as a privileged document so as to reject the request of the petitioner to furnish a copy. It is also relevant to notice that in the counter-affidavit a new plea has been taken by the respondents stating that the said investigation report has no importance since the enquiry officer himself does not want to rely upon the same for his conclusions and therefore copy of the same need not be furnished.

14. I do not find any substance even in the said contention. Since the enquiry report of M.W.1 is the basis for the proceedings initiated against the petitioner, it cannot be said that the document has no relevance. It is also pertinent to notice that the inspection of the records of the Self-Help Groups was held in the absence of the petitioner. Admittedly, the disciplinary proceedings were initiated on the basis of the inspection report of M.W.1 who verified the records of Self-Help Groups. In the circumstances, the mere examination of M.W.1 as a management witness does not serve the purpose. Even though the enquiry officer does not rely upon the said report to arrive at his conclusions, the same being an essential document to meet the allegations in the charge-sheet, the respondents are bound to furnish a copy of the same to the petitioner. The importance of the said document for the defence of the petitioner is apparent from the fact that the entire disciplinary proceedings are based upon the said inspection of M.W.1. In the circumstances, unless a copy of the investigation report of M.W.1 is furnished, the petitioner will not be in a position to prepare his own defence. Hence, it is not correct to contend that the document in question is not a relevant document. The petitioner cannot be denied such an opportunity even on the ground that he has already cross-examined M.W.1.

15. So far as the examination of the complainants is concerned/it is for the respondent-Bank to decide as to whom they want to examine to establish the charges. Hence, it is not necessary for this Court to express any opinion on the said issue at this stage and no Mandamus as such can be issued to the respondent to produce the complainants. As a matter of fact, in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it is stated that the respondent-Bank is willing to produce the complainants provided they are available.

16. For the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to furnish a copy of the report of M.W.1's inspection of Kalasamudram Branch as well as the accounts of the Self-Help Groups from 5.1.2008 to 16.1.2008 and then proceed with further enquiry.

17. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.