Rajesh Tyagi vs State Bank Of India And Others

Ramesh Ranganathan, CJ

Heard Mr. Arvind Vashistha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Anil Kumar Joshi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D.S. Patni, learned Standing Counsel for the State Bank of India.

The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court seeking a writ of mandamus commanding and directing the disciplinary authority to change the Presenting Officer, and to direct the Inquiry Officer to provide the document sought for by the petitioner in his representation dated 27.05.2019.

The allegation of misconduct levelled against the petitioner, for which a disciplinary inquiry is being held, reads as under:-

"ALLEGATION 1: On 19.09.2018 Shri Tyagi misbehaved with Shri Puneet Pal, Chief Manager at A.O. Dehradun, in Shri Pal's cabin.

ALLEGATION 2: Shri Rajesh Tyagi physically assaulted Shri Puneet Pal on 19.09.2018 in the office premises and threatened him of further assault outside the office premises. Shri Tyagi used abusive language & threatened Shri Pal by using words as "मै आज शाम को तेरे को ऑफिस के बाहर मारूंगा, बहन ...., मादर ......,तेरी मॉ की ....... and मेरी तो आज नौकरी खत्म पर मैं तेरी भी खत्म कर दूंग" in his cabin

ALLEGATION 3: Shri Tyagi failed to maintain good conduct and discipline and his acts are unbecoming of a Bank officer."

After a charge sheet was issued, an Inquiry Officer was appointed, as also a Presenting Officer to conduct the inquiry.

We are informed that evidence, on behalf of the Bank, has been adduced; and the delinquent employee has still to adduce evidence on his behalf. While matters stood thus, the petitioner invoked the jurisdiction of this Court seeking a change of the Presenting Officer, and for certain documents to be furnished to him.

The scope of judicial review, in matters such as the present, is extremely limited. This Court would not sit in judgment, or act as an appellate authority, and micro-manage the departmental inquiry. If, as is now contended before us, the Presenting Officer is biased and the Bank has violated the rules of natural justice in not furnishing certain documents, it is always open to the petitioner to question the same after the enquiry is completed, and an order is passed by the disciplinary authority thereafter. It would be wholly inappropriate for this Court, when the enquiry is still in progress, to interdict the enquiry on the ground that the Presenting Officer is allegedly biased or because the petitioner has not been furnished certain documents.

In this context, it is relevant to note that, while the petitioner claims that the Presenting Officer is biased and his actions are malafide, he has not even chosen to array him as a respondent eo-nominee in the present writ petition. It is well settled law, as held by the Supreme Court in State of Bihar Vs. P.P. Sharma: AIR 1991 SC 1260, that, unless the person against whom malice or bias is alleged is arrayed as a respondent eo-nominee in the writ petition, such allegations cannot be examined beyond his back, and without his being given an opportunity of being heard.

With regards non-furnishing of documents, the petitioner claims that he should have been furnished a copy of the preliminary inquiry report not in relation to his case, but in relation to some other matter. It is well settled that, unless the preliminary inquiry report is relied upon by the disciplinary authority to establish the charge against the delinquent employee, non-furnishing of a copy of the preliminary inquiry report is not fatal. (Refer: Chandrama Tewari Vs. Union of India: 1987 (Supp.) SCC 518; and State of Assam and another Vs. Mahendra Kumar Das and others: AIR 1970 SC 1255)

In any event, as noted hereinabove, all these contentions can as well be raised by the petitioner after conclusion of the disciplinary enquiry. A writ of mandamus is issued only when there is violation of a statutory provision- be it plenary or subordinate, or for failure to discharge a statutory obligation. No such violation has been alleged in the writ petition. We see no reason therefore to interfere, in writ proceedings, at this stage. Leaving it open to the petitioner, if he so chooses, to raise all these contentions after conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings, and after the disciplinary authority takes a final decision in this regard, the writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. No costs.