The Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court has dismissed writ petitions filed by two suspended employees of Gondia District Central Co-operative Bank challenging a fresh departmental enquiry into alleged misappropriation of ₹44.49 lakh.
Petitioners had earlier faced an enquiry in which the Enquiry Officer found them negligent, holding the charges “partially proved.” A show-cause notice proposing dismissal was issued, but before any punishment was imposed, the bank’s disciplinary authority resolved to appoint a new Enquiry Officer and conduct a de novo enquiry, citing the seriousness of the financial defalcation.
The employees argued that the fresh enquiry violated the doctrine of double jeopardy, as they had already undergone one enquiry. They relied on multiple precedents where second enquiries were held impermissible after exoneration or punishment in the first. The Industrial Court rejected their plea, granting only full subsistence allowance during suspension.
Justice Sachin S. Deshmukh upheld the Industrial Court’s decision, held that a disciplinary authority is empowered to order a de novo departmental enquiry if it disagrees with the findings of an Enquiry Officer, even where the officer has found charges partially proved, so long as no punishment has yet been imposed.
Citing Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v. B. Karunakar, (1993) 4 SCC 727 and Regulation 21(f) of the Bank’s service rules, the Court ruled that “differing” from a report includes the power to initiate a fresh enquiry. It rejected the petitioners’ plea of double jeopardy, noting that the earlier precedents they relied on involved cases where employees were either exonerated or punished, unlike here. Given the serious allegations of ₹44.49 lakh misappropriation, the Industrial Court’s decision allowing the fresh enquiry was upheld, and the writ petitions were dismissed.
Appearances:
Mr. S.D. Chopde, Advocate for petitioners
Mr. A.M. Ghare, Advocate for respondent No.1
