SITA RAM AGGARWAL Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner for issuance of a writ of Certiorari for quashing the order dated 31.1.1995 passed by the Deputy General Manager Disciplinary Authority under which the petitioner has been retired compulsorily from the service of Punjab National Bank (PNB). The petitioner was appointed as Civil Engineer by respondent bank on 12.4.1993 and was initially posted to supervise the construction work of the bank at Bhikaji Cama Palace, New Delhi. Since his work was not satisfactory, he was not selected for the promotion in the interview held in April, 1988. He was issued a charge-sheet on 7.7.1988 on the allegations that he failed to take possible steps to ensure and protect the interest of the bank and did not discharge his duties with utmost devotion and diligence and thus committed misconduct in terms of Regulation 3(i) of Punjab National Bank Officers and Employees (Conduct and Regulations), 1977 (hereinafter referred to as "Regulations"). He submitted a show cause notice to the charge-sheet and also Memorandum and letter dated 25.10.1988 and finally preferred an appeal before the Chairman-cum-Managing Director which was turned down. Since, interviews were held again in January-February, 1990 for promotion, and he was not called for the same, he filed a writ petition wherein an order was passed that any promotion made would be subject to the final decision of the writ petition. However, subject to the final decision of the writ petition, he was promoted with effect from 19.7.1993. The petitioner has narrated all these facts to allege malafide of the officers of the bank in the subsequent charge-sheet of misconduct which was slapped upon him while he was posted at Bhopal. On 14.9.1993, he along with Mr. Yusuf Zia, an officer of the regional bank at Bhopal, visited later's residence. The allegations against him were that he again visited the residence of Mr. Yusuf Zia on 16.9.1993 at about 1.30 pm when his mother Mst. Mehfuza Begum was alone and he tried to molest her. He was served with a show-cause notice on 18.9.1993 to explain his visit to the residence of Mr. Yusuf Zia and about his misconduct with his mother. In his explanation, he denied about his visit on 16.9.1993 and stated that he had visited the residence of Mr. Yusuf Zia on 14.9.1993 after several requests by him. He also explained that as per advice of the doctor, he was on bed rest for 16.9.2003. Since the petitioner did not attend office after 16.9.1993, he was also charge-sheeted of misconduct for having left the office without obtaining the prior permission of the competent authority and for absenting himself from duties unauthorizedly.

(2.) The petitioner has been served with the charge-sheet with the undermentioned charges:

(3.) The petitioner replied the above charges on 27.1.1994. With regard to the charge no.1, he admitted that he did visit Zia's house on 14.9.1993, but stated the same to be at later's instance. He, however, denied his visit on 16.9.1993 or any other day. With regard to charge no.2, he stated that on 18.9.1993 at about 11 am, an erratic group of employees of the Bank obstructed him to proceed for his work and they also started behaving with him in an abhorrent manner. He then approached the Deputy Zonal Manager who suggested him not to go to worksite and also advised him to proceed on leave and accordingly he made an application on 18.9.1993 for proceeding on leave from 20.9.1993 to 25.9.1993. He stated that he proceeded on leave after obtaining verbal consent of Deputy Zonal Manager and denied that he proceeded on leave without consent or knowledge of the higher authorities. He stated that on 25.9.1993, he being unwell, applied for extending leave on medical grounds and also sent a phonogram on 4.10.1993 informing about his sickness. He stated having sent as many as 8 phonograms starting from 16.10.1993 to 21.01.1994 and 6 letters starting from 8.11.93 to 7.1.94 seeking grant of leave. On this premise, he denied that he was unauthorizedly absent from duty.