S D GUPTA Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner seeks quashing of the charge sheet dated 19.7.1995, the enquiry report dated 24.6.1996, order of the disciplinary authority dated 22.1.1998 imposing the penalty of dismissal from service which shall be a disqualification from future service and order of the Appellate Authority dated 9.12.1998 upholding the order of penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority. Petitioner also challenges the charge-sheet dated 20.7.1995 and the enquiry report dated 1.2.1997. Petitioner though laid a challenge to the charge- sheet dated 4.11.1994, enquiry report dated 10.7.1995 and the order of the disciplinary authority dated 5.9.1995 in the writ petition, did not press the same during argument. Arguments were therefore restricted to the charge-sheet dated 19.7.1995, enquiry report pertaining to the said charge sheet and the penalty imposed thereunder. Challenge to the charge sheet dated 20.7.1995 was restricted only to one ground, namely, delay in issuance of the charge sheet. No arguments were advanced in respect of the enquiry report dated 1.2.1997. Counsel for the petitioner stated that challenge to the enquiry report dated 1.2.1997 was given up save and accept that the charge sheet dated 20.7.1995 was being challenged on the ground of delay in issuing the charge sheet.

(2.) Petitioner was appointed in the clerical cadre under Punjab National Bank on 25.3.1958. He earned various promotions. On 25.6.1983 petitioner was promoted as an officer in scale III. On 25.8.1989 he was promoted as Officer Scale IV. As per the petitioner, he was posted in troublesome, critical, stagnant and loss making branch of the bank at Rajouri Garden, New Delhi on his being promoted in scale IV. He was posted as Chief Manager. Thereafter, petitioner was posted as Chief Inspector (Touring) on 1.2.1992. Said job required the petitioner to conduct inspections and investigations pertaining to complaints qua the working of certain branches of the bank. As per the petitioner he had an unblemished record.

(3.) Petitioner states that he was to attain the age of 60 years in the month of July 1995 and was to superannuate on 31.7.1995. He was expecting to receive a farewell and his terminal benefits. Petitioner was expecting to lead a happy retired life. Alas, he was struck with a bolt of lightening. Two charge-sheets dated 19.7.1995 and 20.7.1995 were served upon the petitioner.