Composite Enquiry Against Mulitple Delinquent Employees Possible Only If They Have Common Disciplinary Authority: Rajasthan HC

Rajasthan High Court affirmed that in cases where there was more than one delinquent employee with similar or common charges, composite disciplinary proceedings could take place against them only if the competent and disciplinary authorities of all such delinquent employees were the same.

In case such authorities were different for all employees, the jurisdiction of one could not be snatched by another.

Furthermore, the bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand highlighted that it was a settled position of law that if the documents annexed with the charge sheet were allowed to be inspected by the delinquent employees, non-supply of such documents by the State would not vitiate the proceedings.

The Court was hearing a petition filed by certain employees of Bank of Baroda (“BOB”) who were served with charge sheets with allegations of being involved in the IFLC Business Development case. As per the petitioner, there was a violation of Regulations 6.3 and 10 of the Bank of Baroda Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976.

Regulation 10 laid down that in case of 2 or more delinquent employees, the competent authority could direct that disciplinary proceedings against all of them might be taken in common proceedings.

Regulation 6.3 provided that whenever an enquiry was proposed, it was expected from the disciplinary authority to frame definite charges against the employees with a statement of allegations, a list of documents along with a list of witnesses etc.

It was argued by the petitioners that for similar charges against all 4 of them, 4 different charge sheets were issued that violated Regulation 10. Furthermore, it was submitted that while serving charge sheets, no documents were furnished to them as required under Regulation 6.3.

On the other hand, it was argued on behalf of the State that both the requirements under Regulation 10 as well as Regulation 6.3 were not mandatory.

Firstly, the employees were given ample opportunity to inspect the documents annexed with the charge sheets post which they also gave their comments on the inspection application. And secondly, all delinquent petitioners held different positions with different disciplinary authorities in which case composite proceedings could not happen.

After hearing the contentions, in relation to the argument regarding common proceedings, the Court perused the charges, as well as their respective competent and disciplinary authorities of the petitioners based on their post and position at BOB.

It was highlighted that the competent and disciplinary authorities for all 4 employees were not the same. It was the same for 2 of them, while for the other 2, it was a different authority. In this background, it was held that,

“Though, some of the charges against all the four delinquent employees are different and some of them are common, hence the disciplinary proceedings of the delinquent Abhishek Agarwal and Manish Kumar Balwani can be conducted by the General Manager & Zonal Head, while, the disciplinary proceedings against the delinquent Sonika Jain and Ranjnee Veronica Lakra can be conducted by the Deputy General Manager (Compliance & Assurance) in a composite manner. Hence, two different composite enquiries and disciplinary proceedings can be conducted against them respectively.”

The Court also made reference to certain Supreme Court cases like Administrator, Union Territory of Dadra and Nagar Haveli v. Gulabhia M. Lad, and Balbir Chand Vs. Food Corporation of India Ltd. & Ors. in which a similar opinion was given by the Apex Court.

On the argument regarding the non-supply of documents, the Court held that it was a settled proposition that as long as the employees were given an opportunity to inspect the documents, their non-supply would not vitiate the proceedings for being illegal.

Reference was made to certain decisions by the Delhi High Court in K.N. Gupta Versus Union of India & Another; B.L. Kohli Versus Union of India & others; Onkar Singh Khosla Versus Union of India & Others that took the same view.

In this light, it was held that since in the present case the petitioners were allowed such inspection of documents, the charge sheets could not be quashed only on the grounds of non-supply of the documents.

Title: Shri Manish Kumar Balwani & Ors. v Bank of Baroda & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 111

Click Here To Read/Download Order