Rimple Bindra Vs Indian Bank and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Rimple Bindra Vs Indian Bank and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief granted to the appellant; the appeal is dismissed, with the accompanying direction that the de novo inquiry be conducted expeditiously by fixing weekly dates and without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties.

Issue for consideration

Whether the disciplinary authority lawfully directed a de novo enquiry where the inquiry officer dropped one of the charges without conducting inquiry into it, notwithstanding counsel's submission that no procedure stipulated in the applicable rules requires the inquiry officer to obtain permission from the disciplinary authority before dropping the charges.

Court's answer

Conducting inquiry into the charges against the delinquent employee is the inquiry officer's proper function; it is not the jurisdiction of the inquiry officer to drop the charges, and the submission that no rule requires obtaining the disciplinary authority's permission before dropping charges is rejected.

Ratio / Principle

The disciplinary authority has ample jurisdiction to reject the inquiry report if the inquiry has not been found to have been conducted in accordance with law.

Key takeaways

Since the inquiry officer dropped one of the charges without conducting inquiry into it, the Division Bench finds no error in the disciplinary authority's decision to direct a de novo inquiry, and the judgment of Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot, J. merits no interference.ratio¶17
Direction issued: the de novo inquiry shall be conducted expeditiously, by fixing weekly dates, without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Division Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Donadi Ramesh, JJ.) dismisses Special Appeal No. 136 of 2025 filed by Rimple Bindra against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge (Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot, J.) dated 14.2.2025 dismissing Writ-A No.19964 of 2024, which had assailed the disciplinary authority's order for a de novo disciplinary enquiry framed under Regulation 7 of the Indian Bank Employees(Discipline and Appeal Rules), 1976. Held: conducting inquiry into the charges is the inquiry officer's function and it is not the jurisdiction of the inquiry officer to drop the charges; the disciplinary authority has ample jurisdiction to reject an inquiry report where the inquiry has not been conducted in accordance with law; accordingly, no error is found in the disciplinary authority's direction to hold a de novo inquiry after the inquiry officer dropped one charge without conducting inquiry into it, and the Single Judge's judgment merits no interference. Direction: de novo inquiry to proceed expeditiously with weekly dates fixed and without unnecessary adjournments to either party.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:35994-DB

Court No. - 29

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 136 of 2025

Appellant :- Rimple Bindra Respondent :- Indian Bank And 2 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Ajeet Kumar Chaurasiya,Akhilesh Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- Amrish Sahai

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J.

This appeal arises out of judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 14.2.2025 in Writ-A No.19964 of 2024. Relevant portion of the order of learned Single Judge reads as under:-

"Heard Shri Namit Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Amrish Sahai, learned counsel for the respondent and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

The petitioner has assailed the order of de novo enquiry. The impugned order records the following reasons for ordering the de novo enquiry under Regulation 7 of the Indian Bank Employees(Discipline and Appeal Rules), 1976. The relevant portion of the order is hereunder:

"On perusal of minutes of the regular inquiry proceedings, PO Brief and IA findings, following serious infirmities were observed in the conduct of inquiry-

- The charges were dropped by the IA and the PO during the course of the inquiry without obtaining permission from the Disciplinary Authority.

The Exhibits were not introduced in the inquiry.

The IA and PO have conducted the inquriy with absolute negligence and have diluted the inquiry process.

The entire purpose of the inquiry has been compromised."

The order depicts due application of mind to relevant facts and has been passed in lawful exercise of powers vested by the Service Rules.

There is no infirmity in the impugned order.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed."

Although learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no procedure stipulated in the applicable rules which requires the inquiry officer to obtain permission from the disciplinary authority before dropping the charges yet, we are not convinced with such submissions. The inquiry officer is supposed to conduct inquiry into the charges against the delinquent employee. It is not the jurisdiction of the inquiry officer to drop the charges. The disciplinary authority otherwise has ample jurisdiction to reject the inquiry report if the inquiry has not been found to be conducted, in accordance with law. Since the inquiry officer has dropped one of the charges without conducting inquiry, we find no error in the decision of the disciplinary authority to direct holding of de novo inquiry. Judgment of Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J., in such circumstances, merits no interference.

In the facts of the case, we direct that de novo inquiry shall be conducted, expeditiously, by fixing weekly dates without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties.

The appeal, consequently, is dismissed.

Order Date :- 11.3.2025 RA

Digitally signed by :- RAZIQ ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad