(Through: Mr Rajesh Srivastava, Advocate.) v. NATIONAL COMMISSION FOR SCHEDULED CASTES & ANR

1. The instant petition is for the following reliefs:- “a. Allow the present writ petition and issue an appropriate writ/order/direction declaring that the Impugned Notice dated 11.06.2021 (Annexure-A) issued to the Board of Directors of the Petitioner by Respondent No. 1 in File No. V-3/Delhi-36/2020/SSW-1 as unconstitutional, being ultra vires of Article 338 of the Constitution of India; and/or b. Allow the present writ petition and issue an appropriate writ/order/direction to quash the proceedings and inquiry bearing File No. V-3/Delhi-36/2020/SSW-1, undertaken by the Respondent No.1 against the Petitioner in relation to the Complaint dated 21.09.2020; and c. Issue an appropriate writ/direction, restraining the Respondent No. 1, its officials, representatives or associates from taking any coercive action KUMAR KAURAV against the Petitioner with respect to File No. V-3/Delhi-36/2020/SSW- 1.”

2. The facts of the case would indicate that the petitioner is a cooperative bank operating without any grant or aid from the Government. It is engaged in the business of banking and providing credit facilities within the territory of Delhi. The respondent no. 1 is a Constitutional body established under Article 338 of the Constitution of India with an aim to safeguard and protect the interests of the Scheduled Castes. The respondent no. 2, is employed as an Assistant Manager with the petitioner at the Devli branch.

3. The petitioner seems to have issued a Show Cause Notice dated 16.09.2020 („SCN’) to the respondent no. 2 alleging grave misconduct and breach of trust. It is submitted by the petitioner that respondent no. 2 with a view to evade disciplinary proceedings filed a complaint dated 21.09.2020 (“said Complaint”) with respondent no.1 alleging harassment. It is the case of the petitioner that respondent no. 2 did not allege lack of reservation for scheduled castes in the petitioner-organisation. Respondent no. 1 seems to have taken cognizance of the complaint and initiated an inquiry against the Petitioner. It also appears that respondent no. 2 has initiated parallel proceedings and filed a civil suit before the Court of competent jurisdiction on 26.09.2021.

4. By the impugned notice dated 11.06.2021, respondent no.1 decided to call the Board of Directors of the petitioner. Additionally, the officers from controlling agencies of the Delhi State Co-operative Bank i.e., National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development („NABARD‟) and officers from Reserve Bank of India („RBI‟) and from the department of financial services have also been called.

5. The Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. v. Association of Retired Supreme Court and High Court Judges at Allahabad and Ors.[1] has held that public officers normally should not be called for their personal appearance unless the same is inevitable. Para. 38 of the said decision reads as under:

38. Before concluding, we must note the conduct of the High Court in frequently summoning officials of the Government of Uttar Pradesh. The appearance of government officials before courts must not be reduced to a routine measure in cases where the government is a party and can only be resorted to in limited circumstances. The use of the power to summon the presence of government officials must not be used as a tool to pressurize the government, particularly, under the threat of contempt. Furthermore, in the said decision the Supreme Court had framed, at para. 45, Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) on the Personal Appearance of Government Officials in Court Proceedings.

6. Although the aforesaid directions are confined to public officers, the foundational principal underlying therein, shall guide the conduct of private organisations as well. The Court is of the opinion that if respondent no. 1 desired to conduct an enquiry, or investigate into, the complaint preferred by respondent no. 2, it could have passed an appropriate direction for the petitioners to produce the required record(s), necessary documents, or to file a reply. Thereafter, if the petitioner had not co-operated, respondent no. 1 would have been at liberty to take appropriate coercive measure(s). However, the casual, routine, and non-considered approach towards directing personal presence of officers through the Impugned Order is neither desirable, nor is in consonance with the principal of good governance.