Does the court have power and discretion to interfere in the inquiry procedures,
where they can decide the eligibility of an inquiry officer or his appointment?,
is the underlying question of this case. The Odisha HC in the writ appeal case
of Chairman, Odisha Gramya Bank v. Rama Chandra Behera
, [W.A. No.62 of
2020, chaired by Justice Sanju Panda & Justice S. K. Panigrahi forwarded a
remarkable stand to the above question, answering in negative the court opined
that, 'Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note
that the learned Single Judge has acted like an appellate authority of the
disciplinary proceedings and quashed the proceedings wrongly.'
The respondent was originally appointed for the post of a clerk-cum-cashier in
the Mitrapur Branch of Balasore Gramya Bank in the District of Balasore on
12.06.1985. By the year 1989 the respondent was a promoted several times, yet
later that year he was suspected of being involved in various fraudulent and
criminal activities which was assumed to have been committed during his time in
office as an additional officer. The appointment of Mr. P.K. Bose as the inquiry
officer was made and the inquiry against the respondent was initiated.
Further upon the completion of the inquiry, the inquiry report was submitted on
02.12.2002 and reply was sought in the second show-cause notice issued to the
present respondent within fifteen days from the date of receipt of letter.
Respondent sought to challenge the second show-cause notice by way of W.P.(C)
No.6558 of 2002 with a prayer to quash the second show-cause notice. The learned
Single Judge passed the judgment in favor of respondent, setting aside the
second show-cause notice and appointment of P.K. Bose, as inquiry officer. The
present writ appeal was brought before the Odisha HC to challenge the judgment
dated on 24th December 2019.
After examining all the submissions, arguments and evidences forwarded by the
councils, the hon'ble HC observed that:
'The Respondent's objection regarding the deuptationist status of the Inquiry
officer is also unsustainable because such status of Sri P. K. Bose does not bar
his appointment as an Inquiring Officer by the competent authority. Hence, the
proposed inquiry report by the Inquiring Officer and the second show-cause
notice cannot be held to be non est or void abinitio.'
The bench further added that, the decision made by the learned single judge
remained unsuccessful in drawing a 'reasonable nexus between the submissions of
the Respondent herein and the correct position of law'.
In lieu of the above made considerations and observations, the bench in this
present case allowed the writ appeal and thereby overruled the decision of the
learned single judge in W.P.(C) No.6558 of 2002.
Written By: Prime Legal Law Firm
Off Address: 39/2, 2nd floor, K G Road, Bengaluru, Karnataka-560001
Phone no: +9986386002, Email: [email protected]