P JHUNJHUNWALA Vs. UNITED BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has moved this Court by means of writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ or direction in the nature of certiorari calling for the records relating to charge sheet No. PD/DIR/2321/89 dated 7/12th August, 1989 issued by the General Manager (Credit), Disciplinary Authority, United Bank of India, the enquiry proceedings and the order of punishment No.PD/DIR/890A dated 30.3.1991 issued by the Disciplinary Authority and quash the same.

(2.) The brief facts are that the petitioner joined the respondent Bank on June 1, 1974 as Law Officer. He was holding the post of Assistant General Manager (Legal) in the Legal Department of the respondent bank at the relevant time. It is further stated that the petitioner is entitled to the use of an office car and in case an office car was not available, he could hire a car on the basis of office circular dated April 16, 1982. The petitioner received a letter dated September 11, 1988, from the Chief Officer ( Premises) making certain allegations with regard to the discrepancies of car bill for the month of September, 1988. The petitioner replied to the same by letter dated October 15, 1988. The Chief Manager (Premises) by letter dated February 4, 1989, again made further allegations for the months of September and November, 1988, with respect to the discrepancies in the car bills. The petitioner filed his reply with respect to the charges and ultimately the petitioner was proceeded against in the matter and charge sheet dated 7/12th August, 1989 was served on the petitioner on August 14, 1989. The Disciplinary Authority passed an order that an enquiry should be held into the charges levelled against the petitioner by order dated November 18, 1989 (Annexure F to the writ petition). The petitioner represented and requested the Disciplinary Authority to re-examine the entire matter and to drop the proceedings. This request was not acceded to and the petitioner was intimated the date for holding of the preliminary enquiry. The Disciplinary Authority earlier passed an office order dated November 18, 1989, appointing Shri D.Prakash, Commissioner for Departmental Enquiries, Central Vigilance Commission, New Delhi, respondent no.2 herein to enquire into the charges levelled against the petitioner.

(3.) It is contended in the writ petition that the said Departmental Enquiry was held on the basis of the report of the Vigilance Department behind the back of the petitioner and the charge sheet had been issued on the basis of the above said report. The petitioner was provided no opportunity and the whole matter was hurried through which caused great prejudice as no proper notice had been received by him for holding an enquiry despite the fact that the petitioner was busy in a Departmental case which was pending before the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta. The petitioner, however, participated in the proceedings before the Enquiry Officer and filed his defence statement. The Articles of charge and the findings of the Inquiry are filed as Annexure `N' to this writ petition. The petitioner was served with the impugned order of punishment by Communication dated March 30, 1991. The operative part of this letter may be reproduced as follows: