B L KAPUR Vs. ALLAHABAD BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This LPA has been filed by the appellant-employee for setting aside the orders/judgment dated 21.2.92 of the learned Single Judge in CWP 2513/84 in which, after holding that principles of natural justice were violated, the learned Single Judge did not set aside the order of dismissal dated 11.6.84 passed by the respondent. The learned Single Judge did not also awarded direct reinstatement of the appellant in the service of respondents with full back wages and consequential relief. He merely directed a fresh inquiry retaining the dismissal order as a provisional order. This according to the employee is illegal. A contention is also raised in regard to the further enquiry to be conducted by the respondent, and it is that if dismissal order is not set aside, no further inquiry can have been ordered as there is no relationship of master and servant, if the dismissal order is to continue.

(2.) The facts of the case are as under: The appellant joined service in the respondent No. 1 s bank as a Clerk-cum-typist on 12.12.86. He was finally appointed as Officer Middle Management Grade Scale-11 and posted at the Link Road, Ludhiana Branch. In between he had various promotions before promotion to the post of Officer Middle Management Grade Scale-11. The petitioner/appellant was charged with defalcation of two sums, one was Rs. 31,905.00 and other was Rs. 40,544.10. Having come to know about the said allegations, the appellant himself wrote two letters to the bank dated 5.1.84 and 30.3.84. In these letters he stated that pending full enquiry in the whole matter, he is surrending the amount by means of a demand draft for adjusting the entries. But in case of his exoneration, the amount may be made good to him and agreed for full cooperation during the process of enquiry. After that, the appellant was issued a charge-sheet/show-cause notice to show cause why he should not be dismissed from service. The appellant replied to show cause notice on 17th May,1984. No inquiry was conducted but thereafter the impugned order of dismissal was passed on lstJune,1984 dismissing the appellant from service. During the course of the said dismissal order, the said authority observed that explanation of the appellant was found to be totally unsatisfactory and only after the investigation the charges were levelled against the appellant and served on him. These charges were substantiated to the satisfaction of the Disciplinary Authority. The contention of the appellant that he made good the loss and submitted Rs. 72,449.10 on being threatened by the bank compelling him to accept the guilt was not accepted. Therefore, the appellant was dismissed from service without any inquiry on the ground that his continuance in service would be prejudical to the interests of the bank. The appellant preferred an appeal against the said order to the General Manager. The Appellate Authority also dismissed the appeal on 11.9.1984.

(3.) Before the learned Single Judge the contention of the appellant/petitioner was that no opportunity was given to the appellant and no inquiry was made in accordance with the Allahabad Bank Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1985. The appellant was not supplied with relevant copies and he was not given opportunity to represent his case. The learned Single Judge found that no record was supplied to him and the Counsel for the bank had relied upon the provision which permits punishment to be imposed in case of confession of guilt. Learned Counsel for the bank therefore submitted before the learned Judge that the bank had proceeded under the proviso to the Regulations which permitted major penalty without inquiry. The Articles of charges were, according to the bank, admitted by the officer. The learned Judge rejected this contention and pointed out that the explanation furnished by the appellant was that it was a case where the appellant wrote two letters, - while depositing the money, - stating that he was doing so as he wanted an inquiry to be conducted and would be exonerated. He also claimed that this money should be repaid to him after inquiry. There was thus, according to the learned Judge, no admission by the appellant about his guilt. Having come to the above conclusions the learned Single Judge observed that it would be in the interests of justice if disciplinary proceedings arc held in accordance with the regulations of the Bank and the appellant is provided full opportunity to participate in those proceedings.