05.04.2013 Views

VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

726 DECISION - 359<br />

(359)<br />

Fresh inquiry / De novo inquiry<br />

Disciplinary Authority has no plenary power to order<br />

a fresh enquiry on the ground that the required<br />

evidence was not properly presented in the inquiry<br />

to facilitate arriving at a decision.<br />

Bishnu Prasad Bohindar Gopinath Mohanda vs. Chief<br />

General Manager, State Bank of India,<br />

1993 (4) SLR ORI 682<br />

Two officers of State Bank of India were dealt with in separate<br />

disciplinary proceedings. Two witnesses were examined for the<br />

management and 3 for the officer in the former case and in the latter<br />

2 witnesses were examined ex parte for the management. On receipt<br />

of the inquiry reports, disciplinary authority passed an order<br />

communicated to the petitioners that on perusal of the report of the<br />

Inquiry Officer he was of the view that the required evidence had not<br />

been properly presented in the enquiry to facilitate arriving at a<br />

decision in the matter and hence he was directing a fresh enquiry in<br />

terms of Rule 50(3) (i) of the SBI (Supervising staff) Service Rules.<br />

Disciplinary authority accordingly appointed a new Inquiry Officer and<br />

new Presenting Officer. The petitioners contended that the disciplinary<br />

authority had no authority to direct a second inquiry to be held. While<br />

the opposite party relied on Rule 50(3)(i) of above-said Rules as per<br />

which “the disciplinary authority .. for reasons to be recorded by it in<br />

writing, remit the case to the Inquiring authority, whether the Inquiring<br />

authority is the same or different for fresh or further inquiry and report.”<br />

The High Court observed that there cannot be conceived of a plenary<br />

power in the disciplinary authority to set aside an inquiry merely for<br />

the wish of it and direct a de novo one. That way there can be really<br />

no end to the process of inquiry and theoretically it will be possible<br />

for the disciplinary authority to direct numerous inquiries. Holding of<br />

a second inquiry is discouraged and the power is denied on<br />

consideration of the fact that if evidence has been led in the inquiry

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!