1997 INSC 0588
                                                       Pankajesh

                                                           Vs

                                                 Tulsi Gramin Bank

                           (K. Ramaswamy, S. Saghir Ahmad, G. B. Pattanaik JJ)

                                                      07.05.1997

                                                        ORDER

1.Delay condoned.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

3.The petitioner was charge-sheeted for dereliction of the duty under Section 3 of the Regional
Rural Banks Act (21 of 1976). After inquiry, the disciplinary authority directed with-holding of
three increments with cumulative effect. On appeal, the appellate authority stated thus: "Therefore,
in accordance with the decision taken by the Board of Directors, one increments is released and he
is warned that in future no such act or irregularity will be repeated, otherwise serious disciplinary
action will be taken". When writ petition was filed by the petitioner, the High Court in the
impugned order dated December 16, 1996 made in Writ Petition 12133/93 stated as under:

                  "We do not feel inclined to quash the order passed by the appellate disciplinary
                  authority who has disposed of the appeal of the petitioner by setting aside the order
                  with-holding one of the three increments and has warned the petitioner that in future
                  no such act/irregularity will be repeated by him and if it is done in that event
                  disciplinary action will be taken against him."

4.It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the High Court has misunderstood the
operative part of the order of the appellate authority. We find no force in the contention. The word
"one increment release" would mean that the appellate authority is inclined to confirm the penalty of
imposing two increments with cumulative effect and thereby, one increment was released from the
penalty. The High Court therefore, is not right in construing that two increments have been released
and one was retained. Instead, the reverse is the intention. Under the circumstances, while clarifying
the factual position, we do not find that it is a case warranting interference.

5. The only legal question sought to be raised in the SLP is whether under Rule 30(3) of the staff
Service Regulation, the enquiry officer has to be higher in rank than the delinquent officer.
Regulation 30(3) of the Staff Service Regulation postulates thus:

                  "The enquiry under this regulation and the procedure with the exception of the final
                  order, may be delegated in case the person against whom proceedings are taken is an
                  officer, to any officer who is in a grade higher than such officer and in the case of an
                  employee, to any officer. For purpose of the enquiry, the officer or employee may not
                  engage a legal practitioner."

6. Thus an enquiry, under the Regulation may be delegated to a person higher in rank than the
delinquent officer, in the case of an officer. But in this case we do not find any substantial
miscarriage of justice prejudicial to the petitioner for the reason that though it is always desirable
that an officer higher in rank than the delinquent officer should be directed to conduct an enquiry,
the enquiry is conducted as a delegate of the disciplinary authority. Therefore, the ultimate decision
is to be taken by the disciplinary authority. By mere delegating the enquiry whether the enquiry
officer is of the same cadre or of higher grade than that of the petitioner, it did not cause any
material irregularity nor resulted in any injustice to the petitioner. under these circumstances, we do
not find any illegality warranting interference.

7. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.