S M GUPTA Vs. ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . Petitioner has filed this writ petition aggrieved by the order of termination of his services. Petitioner was dismissed from service on 25th May, 1995 while he was working as a Manager in Oriental Bank of Commerce. The petitioner has challenged the suspension order dated 16th October, 1993 as well as the report of the inquiry officer dated 25th March, 1995 which was based on the charge-sheet issued to the petitioner on 29th July, 1994.

(2.) The whole controversy revolves round the inquiry report as well as the decision of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority. The respondents issued a charge sheet vide memo dated 29th July, 1994. Petitioner sent a representation on 16th August, 1994 stating, inter alia, that in view of the complaint lodged with the Police Station Connaught Place, and FIR having been registered against the petitioner, the departmental inquiry be stayed as grave prejudice to the defence of the petitioner would be caused in the criminal case if inquiry was permitted to continue. The next grievance of the petitioner was that the said representation of 16th August, 1994 was a request by the petitioner to the respondent for not holding the inquiry but same was treated as a statement of defence in reply to the said charge-sheet.

(3.) Mr.Arvind Nayar, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that this was so construed by the inquiry authority in spite of specific plea taken by the petitioner in hie representation to the disciplinary authority against his termination as well as to the appellate authority in the statutory appeal neither the disciplinary authority nor the appellate authority afforded an opportunity at that stage to the petitioner to file a statement of defence. Therefore, it has been contended before me by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order suffers from vires of non-application of mind and denial of principle of natural justice. It was further contended that even the inquiry officer has wrongly recorded the proceedings and a representation to that effect was made to the respondent but neither the disciplinary authority nor the appellate authority took note of the same and simply representation of the petitioner was dismissed by the disciplinary authority and the appeal was also dismissed by the disciplinary authority. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has sent a letter dated 9th September, 1994 even to the inquiry officer, inter alia, bringing to his notice that the representation dated 16th August, 1994 of the petitioner was taken as a statement of defence whereas the said letter was simply a request for withdrawing the inquiry proceedings pending criminal proceedings initiated by the bank against the petitioner.