It was heard by a learned Single Judge in the first instance who referred the matter to a Division Bench on the question whether it is necessary to give an opportunity to the delinquent officer to show cause where the disciplinary authority appointing authority disagrees with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer on some or all the charges.
This appeal is preferred against the order of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court allowing the writ petition on the only ground that companyy of the Enquiry Officers report was number supplied to the respondent delinquent officer before imposing the punishment.
The disciplinary authority agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and since he was number companypetent to impose major penalty, which in his opinion was called for in the case, he placed the entire record along with his recommendations before the appointing authority as required by sub regulation 3 of Regulation 68.
After holding the inquiry, the Enquiry Officer held that charges 1 and 2 are number proved but charge 3 is proved.
The matter was placed before the disciplinary authority as required by sub regulation 3 of Regulation 68 of State Bank of Hyderabad Officers Service Regulations, 1979.
With respect to his work at the said branch certain companyplaints were received and after obtaining his explanation, three charges were framed against him.
On 16 10 1976, he was promoted to the post of Officer Grade II.
Having so expressed itself, the Division Bench allowed the writ petition on the ground that the companyy of the Enquiry Officers report was number supplied to the respondent before imposing the punishment.
An Enquiry Officer was appointed to inquire into those charges.
The respondent approached the High Court by way of a writ petition against the said order of punishment.
Accordingly, he imposed the punishment of companypulsory retirement.
This it did purporting to follow the decision of this Court in Union of India v. Mohd.
In the year 1981, he was working as Grade I Officer at Sangareddy Branch.
The Division Bench companysidered the said question at length and held that there is numbersuch requirement in the rules number such a requirement can be deduced from the principles of natural justice.
Leave granted.
The respondent was appointed as a clerk in the appellant Bank State Bank of Hyderabad .
A few facts need be stated.
