Orissa High Court
Case Details
ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.5688 of 2022 In the matter of an Application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 Petitioner. *** Itishree Nath Aged about 44 years Daughter of Dr. Rajkishore Nath House No.H1 MIG/158, K9/A At: Kalinga Bihar, Patrapada Bhubaneswar – 751 019 District: Khordha. … -VERSUS- 1. Bank of Baroda Represented through its Managing Director & Chief Executive Officer Corporate Centre, C-26, G. Block Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East Mumbai – 400 051 State of Maharashtra. 2. Executive Director Bank of Baroda, Baroda Corporate Centre C-26, G Block, Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra East, Mumbai – 400 051 State of Maharashtra. 3. Deputy General Manager Bank of Baroda, Zonal Office Baroda Zone, 5th Floor, Baroda Bhawan A.C. Dutta Road, Alkapuri W.P.(C) No.5688 of 2022 Page 1 of 73 Baroda – 390 007 State of Gujarat. 4. Regional Manager, Bank of Baroda Godhra Region, Regional Office Godhra, Kalindi, 1 Mahavir Jain Society Near S.T. Depot, Godhra – 389 001 State of Gujarat. 5. Regional Manager Bank of Baroda Regional Office, Bhubaneswar Region 1st Floor, Bivav Gulmohar, Nayapalli Bhubaneswar – 751 012 District: Khordha. … Counsel appeared for the parties: Opposite Parties. For the Petitioner : M/s. Sidheswar Mallik Prahallad Chandra Das, Mamata Mallik, Sidharth Mallik and Amar Prasad Mohanty, Advocates For the Opposite party No.3 P R E S E N T: : Mr. K.M.H. Niamati, Advocate HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN Date of Hearing : 16.07.2024 :: Date of Judgment : 11.09.2024 J UDGMENT Assailing the appellate order dated 27.01.2022 passed by the Executive Director & Appellate Authority under Regulation 17 confirming the punishment of ―REMOVAL FROM SERVICE WHICH SHALL NOT BE DISQUALIFICATION FROM W.P.(C) No.5688 of 2022 Page 2 of 73 FUTURE EMPLOYMENT‖ awarded by the Deputy Zonal Head- Deputy General Manager and Disciplinary Authority in exercise of powers under Regulation 5(3) read with Regulation 6 of the Bank of Baroda Officer Employees‘ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976, the petitioner questioned propriety of institution of the disciplinary proceeding by way of the instant writ petition and made the following prayer(s): “Under the aforesaid facts and circumstance the petitioner humbly prays that this Hon‟ble court may graciously be pleased to, I) Quash the impugned order of punishment dated the 05.05.2021 consequential order in appeal dated 27.01.2022 as at Annexure-14. at Annexure-12 and as II) Direct/order that the petitioner shall be reinstated into services with all consequential service and monetary benefits. III) Pass such other orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice. And for this act of kindness the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.” Facts: 2. As it emanated from the narration of facts as adumbrated by the writ petitioner, so far as relevant, runs thus: W.P.(C) No.5688 of 2022 Page 3 of 73 2.1. The petitioner entered into service on 26.05.2011 as Junior Manager Group (JMG) Scale-I at the Bank of Baroda in Cuttack, and being transferred worked at Bhubaneswar from 06.12.2012 to 26.05.2017 and retransferred to Cuttack where she worked from 27.05.2017 to 26.06.2019. 2.2. Her representation dated 07.06.2019 against proposed transfer in terms of Circular No.72—HO:BR:111, dated 29.03.2019 stipulating policy of ―posting of employees who have differently-abled dependants‖ has been turned down and on 29.06.2019, the petitioner was transferred to Godhra Region under Banks‘ Inter-Zonal Transfer Policy. The petitioner stood relieved on the same day, i.e., 29.06.2019. 2.3. While the matter stood thus, alleging to have ―committed irregularities in respect of prolonged unauthorised absence continuously with effect from 30.06.2019‖, disciplinary proceeding under Regulation 6 of the Bank Baroda Officer Employees‘ (Discipline & Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (―Regulations, 1976‖, for convenience) was drawn up on 03.12.2020 against the petitioner with the following charges: “e) She knowingly and wilfully violated and flouted established rules, Regulations and procedures of the Bank. f) She flouted instructions of higher authority. W.P.(C) No.5688 of 2022 Page 4 of 73 g) She adopted such steps and took such actions as were derogatory, prejudicial, detrimental or injurious to the interest of the Bank. h) She did acts unbecoming of a Bank Officer.” 2.4. Memorandum of Charges was communicated on 20.10.2020 in her address at Bank of Baroda, Regional Office, Godhra where she did not join; however, on 04.01.2021 the Memorandum of Charges was communicated to her personal e-mail ID, responding to which she submitted statement of defense on 01.02.2021 denying the allegations. 2.5. Having appointed the Chief Manager of Godhra Region, Baroda Zone as Inquiring Authority on 01.02.2021 and the Presenting Officer on 03.02.2021, the Disciplinary Authority intimated the fact to the petitioner and instructed her to engage defense assistant, if she so wishes. 2.6. As scheduled, the petitioner appeared before the Inquiring Authority on 25.02.2021 for the purpose of inquiry on the charges. It is alleged by the petitioner that flouting the mandate of Clause 9 of Regulation 6 of the Regulations, 1976 to adjourn the inquiry to a later date not exceeding 30 days or within such extended time in the event the delinquent employee does not plead guilty, the Inquiring Authority recorded that the petitioner denied the allegations. Instead of adjourning the case to W.P.(C) No.5688 of 2022 Page 5 of 73 a later date, the Inquiring Authority proceeded with the inquiry and concluded the entire inquiry proceeding. 2.7. It is alleged by the petitioner that the Inquiring Authority obtained an application/letter from the petitioner under coercion to the effect that she does not want any further time, she does not dispute the genuineness of the documents relied upon by the prosecution. 2.8. The Inquiring Authority submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority on 18.03.2021, which was communicated to the petitioner on 22.03.2021. The petitioner was asked to submit her representation against the inquiry report within 10 days. After conclusion of the Inquiry on 25.02.2021 the petitioner was allowed to join in the Regional Office at Godhra. The petitioner joined the Regional Office at Godhra on 16.03.2021 and she was accommodated in a hotel and was in search of a rented house. It is stated by the petitioner that certain staff of the bank being found COVID positive, the bank was closed for some days. Due to pandemic situation the petitioner was asked to vacate the hotel as there was no other occupant. As she had no other accommodation in Godhra, she was constrained to leave the place and return to Bhubaneswar with an application to reconsider her case for transfer to Bhubaneswar region in terms of the Circular dated 29.03.2019. On 01.04.2021 the petitioner submitted her W.P.(C) No.5688 of 2022 Page 6 of 73 representation against the inquiry report. On 18.04.2021 the petitioner submitted further representation requesting for her deputation to Bhubaneswar Region on the plea that he was to look after her old ailing father and it was not possible to leave her father alone at Bhubaneswar especially due to the pandemic situation. 2.9. The order of punishment passed on 30.04.2021 was
Legal Reasoning
communicated to her on 05.05.2021. Aggrieved by such order of punishment under Regulation 4 read with Regulation 5 of the Regulations, 1976, the petitioner preferred appeal before the Appellate Authority under Regulation 17 on 03.06.2021, which came to rejected by the Appellate Authority by order dated 27.01.2022. 2.10. Against said appellate order, the petitioner filed this writ petition for showing indulgence in exercise of power of judicial review under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Response of the opposite parties: 3. Strongly refuting the allegation of non-adherence to the principles of natural justice, the opposite parties by way of counter affidavit submitted that on the basis of transfer policy of the bank, after eight years of service of the petitioner in Cuttack Branch, Bhubaneswar-II Region, Bhubaneswar (now Cuttack Region), on W.P.(C) No.5688 of 2022 Page 7 of 73 29.06.2019, she was to report to Godhra Region on 30.06.2019. As the representation of the petitioner being rejected and her request to cancel the transfer in terms of Circular dated 29.03.2019 was refused by the competent authority, with advisory to report to her duties, Letters bearing Nos. BZ/GR/HRM/36/3423 dated 04.11.2019, BZ/GR/HRM/37/1684 dated 09.09.2020, BZ/GR/HRM/37/1701 dated 14.09.2020 were issued to her informing that her absence is treated as unauthorized. After giving ample opportunities to her for joining, further proceeding was initiated by issuance of the Articles of Charge and Statement of Allegations against the petitioner vide Memorandum No.598—BZ- HRM-09, dated 03.10.2020. 3.1. In the disciplinary proceedings on appreciation of evidence available on record, order dated 30.04.2021 was passed with the following punishment as enumerated in Regulation 4 of the Regulations, 1976: “REMOVAL FROM SERVICE WHICH SHALL NOT BE DISQUALIFICATION FROM FUTURE EMPLOYMENT”. 3.2. In the appeal preferred by the petitioner-delinquent (charged officer, referred as CSO) under Regulation 17 ibid., such order of punishment got affirmed by order dated 27.01.2022. Hearing: W.P.(C) No.5688 of 2022 Page 8 of 73 4. As the petitioner has been removed from service since 30.04.2021 by order the disciplinary authority, which was also upheld in the appeal on 27.01.2022, and pleadings being completed in the matter, on consent of the counsel for the parties, the present matter is taken up for final disposal at the stage of admission.
Legal Reasoning
4.1. Accordingly, this Court heard Sri Sidheswar Mallik, Advocate and Sri K.M.H. Niamati, learned Advocate for the opposite parties. Hearing being concluded on 16.07.2024, the matter stood reserved for preparation and delivery of Judgment/Order. Rival contentions and submissions: 5. Sri Sidheswar Mallik, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner submitted that knowing fully well that the petitioner being relieved from duties on 29.06.2019 did not join at the place of transfer, the opposite parties with oblique motive sent the Memorandum of Charges to the Regional Office address at Godhra and she was not well acquainted with handling e-mail. 5.1. On a flimsy ground that her case for consideration of cancellation of transfer does not fall within the parameters of Circular dated 29.03.2019 has been turned down. The learned Advocate referring to copy of Medical Certificate issued from Akhyam Sahayak Kendra, Indian Red Cross Society, Odisha, State Branch, W.P.(C) No.5688 of 2022 Page 9 of 73 Bhubaneswar by order of Chief Medical Officer of the Capital Hospital, Bhubaneswar (Annexure-3) in favour of the father of the petitioner submitted that the opposite parties have failed to take into account the guidelines prescribed under said Circular issued in the perspective of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 in proper perspective. Since the father of the petitioner was having disability, which is undisputed, the bank authorities ought not to have denied the benefit of Circular by cancelling the inter-zonal transfer to Godhra. 5.2. Advancing argument further, Sri Sidheswar Mallik, learned counsel placed reliance on Regulation 6 of the Regulations, 1976, which deals with ―Procedure for imposing major penalties‖. In course of inquiry the Inquiring Authority did not examine any witness. The inquiry proceeding was concluded within an hour. Sub- clause (a) of Clause 8 of Regulation 6 stipulates the Inquiring Authority shall by notice in writing specify the day on which the officer employee shall appear in person before the Inquiring Authority. Sub-clause (d) of Clause 8 of Regulation 6 provides that the Inquiring Authority shall record a finding of guilt in respect of those articles of charges to which the officer employee concerned pleads guilty. Clause 9 of Regulation 6 provides that if the officer employee does not plead guilty, the Inquiring Authority shall adjourn the case to a later date not W.P.(C) No.5688 of 2022 Page 10 of 73 exceeding 30 days or within such extended time as may be granted by the Inquiring Authority. The purpose/intention behind the provisions of said Clause 9 is to give ample opportunity to prepare for defense. In the present case, the Inquiring Authority concluded the inquiry on the same day of its commencement. 5.3. Though the use of word ‗shall‘ in Clause 9 is mandatory in nature which leaves no discretion to the Inquiring Authority to conclude the proceeding on the same day without adjourning the matter, the said Authority obtained an application/letter from the petitioner (under coercion) to the effect that she does not dispute the documents produced and she would not examine any witness on her defense. The Inquiring Authority was obligated to follow the procedure prescribed in Clause 9 of Regulation 6 and there was no scope for the Inquiring Authority to waive the provision of law and adopt his own procedure at his whims. Thus argued, Sri Sidheswar Mallik, learned Advocate urged that for infraction of procedure laid in Regulation 6, the inquiry proceeding would be a nullity, thereby it would render the order passed in disciplinary proceeding non est in the eye of law. Such fact being not considered in its right earnest, the appellate order would require to be set at naught. Therefore, he requested to accede to the prayers
Decision
made in the writ petition. W.P.(C) No.5688 of 2022 Page 11 of 73 6. Sri K.M.H. Niamati, learned Advocate for the opposite parties would submit that details of compliance of principles of natural justice has been elaborately narrated in the counter affidavit. In order to protract the proceeding further, a lame excuse has been made in the writ petition that the petitioner was not acquainted with e-mail. Rather responding to the e-mail, she had filed written statement of defense which was taken note of by the appropriate authorities. Taking this Court to Annexure-I/1 of the counter affidavit, Sri K.M.H. Niamati, learned Advocate submitted that the petitioner has sought to proffer explanation on each point cited in the Memorandum of Charges. A false plea has been set up by the counsel for the petitioner in this respect. This fact would be manifest from the following written statement of defense filed before the Disciplinary Authority by the petitioner: “I was always in touch with Godhra Regional Office through e-mail and letters. Sir, My plight may not please be construed as disobedience, nor did I intend to cause any difficulties.” 6.1. He submitted that the story to draw compassion of the bank authorities alluded to by the petitioner is tell-tale. Attention of this Court is drawn by Sri K.M.H. Niamati, learned Advocate to Annexure-O/1, which is an application addressed to the Branch Manager, Gandhi W.P.(C) No.5688 of 2022 Page 12 of 73 Chowk Branch, Godhra, Bank of Baroda wherein it has been stated thus: “*** In spite of all my personal difficulties I joined my new place of posting on 16.03.2021 and is discharging my duties since then. *** I am an outsider and As resident of Odisha, Bhubaneswar, I was staying in a hotel near the Branch since 26.03.2021. I was sitting idle in the hotel which (is) creating mental stress. To add to my woes further, my ailing old aged father who is also staying all alone since my joining here is suffering from mental agony having COVID positive cases in my branch, fearing for my health as I am an unmarried lady staying alone in a hotel at Godhra. on Moreover today morning unfortunately I have sprained my ankle as I slipped in the bathroom.” 29.03.2021, i.e., 6.2. The said application does not reveal that the officials of the hotel have ever instructed her to vacate but contrary fact has been asserted in the writ petition. It is also inconceivable that during the pandemic (COVID-19) any person having given shelter ever asked any person to vacate. It is concocted story built up by the petitioner that a hotel at Godhra (Gujarat) would have asked her to vacate during the pandemic. The fact of non-joining at Godhra (Gujarat) has been admitted at different paragraphs of writ petition. W.P.(C) No.5688 of 2022 Page 13 of 73 6.3. As regards major allegation of non-observance of principles of natural justice in terms of Regulation 6 of the Regulations, 1976, it is urged that mere presence of the term ―shall‖ is not indicative that the provision is mandatory. Rather, such a provision is directory in nature in view of Bhavnagar University Vrs. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Ltd., (2003) 2 SCC 111. Every infraction of principles of natural justice may not lead to infer that the entire proceeding is vitiated inasmuch as no prejudice has been pleaded by the petitioner. 6.4. It is fact that the petitioner was afforded ample opportunities vide Letters dated 04.11.2019, 09.09.2020 and 14.09.2020 advising her to report to duty. Referring to what has been asserted in paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit it has been urged by Sri K.M.H. Niamati, learned Advocate that, ―all the procedures were followed in a disciplined manner and no violation was made by the bank. The allegation regarding obtaining a letter under coercion is nothing but a blatant lie and a product of after-thought and is averred just to make out a false and frivolous case.‖ The learned counsel has emphatically submitted that such allegation was never made either during inquiry or at any subsequent level. 6.5. Sri K.M.H. Niamati, learned Advocate referred to the Inquiry Finding Report dated 18.03.2021 (Annexure-8), wherein the following has been recorded: W.P.(C) No.5688 of 2022 Page 14 of 73 “Undersigned asked the Presenting Officer whether she wants to submit any additional document in support of the case, Presenting Officer informed that she does not want to submit any other documents. *** Undersigned further asked CSO (Charged Officer) whether she wants to bring any witness in her case. CSO informed that she does not want to bring any witness in the case to defend. that no the CSO Undersigned advised further opportunities will be given to demand additional defence documents or to bring any witness in this case. The CSO agreed for the same and submit a letter dated 25.02.2021 and marked as DE-7/1-2. In same letter CSO accepted the genuineness of the documents submitted today by Presenting Officer and confirmed that no need of verification from original. Undersigned has given equal opportunities to both the parties. Both the parties Presenting Officer and CSO are not having anything to submit/say in the case (matter). Therefore, regular hearing is finally concluded with the consent of all concerned. The parties have been allowed to submit their written briefs. First the PO has to submit her written brief by 05.03.2021. CSO has also been instructed to submit his written brief to undersigned within ten days from date of receiving of written brief from PO, latest by 15.03.2021.” 6.6. Faced with such situation, the Inquiring Authority had no occasion to adjourn the matter for further inquiry and accordingly as conceded by the petitioner and the W.P.(C) No.5688 of 2022 Page 15 of 73 Presenting Officer, he has concluded the inquiry affording reasonable opportunity to the charged officer (petitioner). Therefore, at this stage, in this writ proceeding such factual details could not have been disputed by the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority having taken into consideration all the evidence available on record vis-(cid:224)-vis each allegation contained in the Memorandum of Charges, there is no scope for this Court to show indulgence in the instant matter. 6.7. Under the aforesaid premise, Sri K.M.H. Niamati, learned counsel insisted for not to entertain this writ petition as nothing is demonstrated by the petitioner to show that there was flaw in decision making process. He submitted that reappreciation of evidence is inappropriate inasmuch as this Court does not sit in appeal against the orders of the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority. At this stage if the confirmed order of punishment in appeal is interfered with, it would tantamount to exceeding the jurisdiction conferred under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Analysis and discussion: 7. As to the issue raised by Sri Sidheswar Mallik, learned counsel that under coercion the letter/application was furnished to the Inquiring Authority by the petitioner W.P.(C) No.5688 of 2022 Page 16 of 73 during inquiry is a disputed fact, which, in the opinion of this Court need not be gone into. Furthermore, the factual finding recorded by the Inquiry Authority could successfully be demolished neither before the Disciplinary Authority nor before the Appellate Authority. 7.1. Having the occasion to go through the contents of ―appeal for review against imposition of penalty under Regulation 17 of Bank of Baroda Officer Employees‘ (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations vide Letter No.BZ:HRM:10:333, dated 30.04.2021‖ placed at Annexure-13 of the writ petition, this Court could ascertain that no denial is made with regard to finding of the Inquiring Authority that she admitted not to present any further documents and not to examine any witness in her defense. Further nothing whatsoever is found in the appeal memo to suggest that the letter/application obtained under coercion as alleged in the writ petition. The fact that such application was obtained under coercion is manifestly fallacious. It is also not disputed nor denied in the appeal memo that she did not have ―access to the e-mail ID‖. Rather it was admitted fact vide statement of defense of the petitioner available at Annexure-I/1 to the counter affidavit that she was in constant touch with Godhra Regional Office via e-mail and letters. Reading of said document filed in defense W.P.(C) No.5688 of 2022 Page 17 of 73 reveals that it is a statement of the petitioner that ―my conscience did not allow me to resume duties leaving my handicapped father to his fate during the pandemic time‖. This Court, therefore, finds force in the submission of Sri K.M.H. Niamati, learned Advocate that Inquiry Finding Report was prepared and submitted to the Disciplinary Authority after inquiry is conducted duly and affording reasonable and sufficient opportunities. 7.2. Further factual aspect which got confirmed in the appeal is that the terms of Circular dated 29.03.2019 would not be attracted to the present fact-situation. Medical Certificate of empanelled Medical Officer of Bank of Baroda at Annexure-N/1 to the counter affidavit reveals as follows: “This is to certify that the document presented before me for candidate Dr. Raj Kishor Nath, certified by Dr. S.C. Mishra for disability states that he is disabled and having short limb. The disability of Dr. Raj Kishor Nath is due to multiple malunited fractures. The Circular of Bank of Baroda dated 29.03.2019 describes disabilities due to various reasons does not include disabilities due to bone related issues.” 7.3. Going by the rejoinder affidavit it is not forthcoming that such an opinion of the panel Medical Officer has been W.P.(C) No.5688 of 2022 Page 18 of 73 disputed before none of the authorities (Inquiring Authority/Disciplinary Authority/Appellate Authority) nor before this Court. 7.4. Apt here to refer to Bharat Singh Vrs. State of Haryana, AIR 1988 SC 2181, wherein it has been laid down that when a point, which is ostensibly a point of law is required to be substantiated by facts, the party raising the point, if he is the writ petitioner, must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear from the writ petition and if he is the respondent, from the counter affidavit. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the writ petition or to the counter-affidavit, as the case may be, the Court will not entertain the point. There is a distinction between a hearing under the Code of Civil Procedure and a writ petition or a counter affidavit. While in a pleading, i.e., a plaint or written statement, the facts and not evidence are required to be pleaded, in a writ petition or in the counter affidavit not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and annexed to it. 7.5. This Court vide Order dated 19.01.2009 passed in the matter of Steel Authority of India Ltd. Vrs. State of Orissa, O.J.C. Nos. 675 & 4568 of 1996 observed that writ petition must contain all necessary pleadings disclosing all facts and the rights in favour of the petitioner. It W.P.(C) No.5688 of 2022 Page 19 of 73 must disclose as to when and how the cause of action had arisen and any action or order passed by the opposite parties which has created any hindrance to the rights of the petitioner. If the aforesaid particulars are not disclosed, the Court should not entertain the writ petition. 7.6. The benefit of ―exemption from routine transfer/ rotational transfer by employees who are care giver of dependent daughter/son/parents/spouse/brother/sister and have bearing on the systematic rehabilitation of parents with disabilities, subject to administrative constraints‖ in terms of Circular dated 29.03.2019 has application to such persons having ―specified disabilities‖ as enumerated in the Schedule appended to the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016. Since the nature of disabilities certified by the doctor based on which the petitioner had submitted her representation for consideration of cancellation of transfer did not fall with the ambit of ―specified disabilities‖, Sri K.M.H. Niamati, learned Advocate for the opposite parties has seemly contended that the competent authority has rejected the representation citing plausible reason. 7.7. The aforesaid factual position and contents of the Inquiry Finding Report as taken care of in the Disciplinary Proceeding leading to award of punishment W.P.(C) No.5688 of 2022 Page 20 of 73 which culminated in rejection of appeal does not deserve indulgence in the writ jurisdiction. 8. The next contention of Sri Sidheswar Mallik, learned Advocate for the petitioner that the inquiry could not have been concluded on one day in contravention of Clause 9 of Regulation 6 of the Regulations, 1976, though seems attractive, is liable to be repelled for the reason that every infraction of procedure does not vitiate or invalidate proceeding which is properly initiated. 8.1. In Clause 9 of Regulation 6, it has been stipulated that, “if the officer employee does not plead guilty, the Inquiring Authority shall adjourn the case to a later date not exceeding 30 days or within such extended time as may be granted by the Inquiring Authority”. 8.2. It is provided in Clause 10 of Regulation 6 as follows: “10. (a) The Inquiring Authority shall, where the officer employee does not admit or any of the articles of charge, furnish to such officer employee a list of documents by which, and a list of witnesses by whom, the articles of charges are proposed to be proved. (b) The Inquiring Authority shall also record an order that the officer employee may for the purpose of preparing his defense (i) inspect within 5 days of the order or within such further time not exceeding W.P.(C) No.5688 of 2022 Page 21 of 73 five days as the Inquiring Authority may allow the documents listed; (ii) submit a list of documents and witnesses that he wants for the Inquiry; (iii) be supplied with copies of statements of witnesses, if any, recorded earlier, and the Inquiring Authority shall furnish such copies not later than three days before the commencement of examination of the witnesses by the Inquiring Authority; (iv) give a notice within 10 days of the order or within such further time not exceeding 10 days as the Inquiring Authority may allow for the discovery or production of documents referred to in item (ii). NOTE: The relevancy of the documents and the examination of the witnesses referred to in Item (ii) shall be given by the officer employee concerned.” 8.3. With the factual scenario already discussed in the foregoing paragraphs it is settled that the petitioner was specifically asked during the course of inquiry with respect to examination of witness and production of documents to adduce evidence, but she declined. It is fact on record that an application/letter to this effect was also submitted by the petitioner, which closes all possibilities of affording further opportunity. This Court is satisfied that there was substantial compliance of W.P.(C) No.5688 of 2022 Page 22 of 73 provisions of the Regulations, 1976, particularly so when there was no challenge with respect to such aspect before the higher Authorities. 8.4. In the case of Rajendra Singh Vrs. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1996) Supp.4 SCR 393 = (1996) 5 SCC 460 it has been observed as follows: