H N WADHWA Vs. NEW BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.6.1991 removing him from service, the order dated 19.11.1991 rejecting his appeal against the decision of the Disciplinary Authority dated 10.6.1991 and the order dated 25.9.1992 rejecting his application for review of the order of the Appellate Authority.

(2.) The petitioner was working as a Manager of respondent no.1 Bank and during the period of 21.8.1985 to 27.11.1986 was posted at Bhadohi, U.P. on three different occasions. He was served with a memorandum No. HRD; 88;1947 dated 2.4.1988 stating that in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings against him the competent authority had placed him under suspension with immediate effect. The charges for which the disciplinary proceedings were initiated related to allegedly fraudulent claim of TA and DA bills by submitting 15 fake hotel bills of the period during which the petitioner was posted at Bhadohi. These hotel bills were issued under the name and style of 'Seth Lodging and Boarding', Gyanpur Road, Bhadohi. The petitioner submitted a reply to the detailed charge-sheet refuting the allegations made therein denying that the bills were fake and contending that he did stay in the guest house of exporter B.K.Seth run under the name and style of "Seth Lodging and Boarding". The explanation was not found satisfactory and, therefore, respondent no.3 was appointed as the Inquiry Officer. The CBI also registered a case as No.48/A/88 on 28.9.1988 and the CBI also submitted a report on the investigation made by it relating to the allegations mentioned in the charge-sheet. Following this the respondent on.2 was appointed the Inquiry Officer in place of respondent no.3. Mr.P.L.Sharma, Assistant Manager, H.R. Department was appointed as the Presenting Officer in place of the earlier Presenting Officer. At this juncture the services of the Investigating Officer of CBI Mr.V.P.Arya was also made available to the Presenting Officer for assistance for various purposes. Vide a letter dated 24.9.1990 the statement of allegations, Annexure-II to the charge-sheet dated 7.4.1988 was modified by adding one more allegation thereto. The proceedings hithertofore was adopted by the new Inquiry Officer and the proceedings continued thereafter. The inquiry resulted into finding against the petitioner. The petitioner alleges that the inquiry proceedings are vitiated as the petitioner was not given the CBI report which was demanded by him, that certain other documents demanded by the petitioner were not given on the excuse that they were not relevant, that the petitioner's request for assistance of a lawyer in view of assistance of a CBI officer given to the Presenting Officer was declined, that one document being an affidavit sworn by B.K.Seth addressed to the CBI was not taken on record by the Inquiry Officer on the excuse that the same was a photocopy, that two valuable witnesses of the petitioner could not be examined because the petitioner's request for holding the inquiry at Bhadohi was declined, that on 11.12.1990 the Inquiry Officer proceeded ex parte on the false pretext that the petitioner had refused to participate in the inquiry proceedings and subsequently refused to recall the witness MW1 who could not be examined because of the ex parte proceedings, that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to cross-examine MW2, that the petitioner was refused the permission to leave station to go to Bhadohi to bring his witnesses and that B.K.Seth who should have been a management witness was not produced for fear of exposure.

(3.) Petition is opposed by respondent no1. In the counter it is submitted that the petitioner was given full opportunity to submit his list of documents and produce witnesses during the proceedings and that the petitioner himself has defaulted in availing of the opportunities given to him. Similarly it is denied that opportunity to cross-examine witnesses was not given and it is contended that the petitioner himself did not avail of the opportunity. Similarly it is contended that the Inquiry Officer conceded to the petitioner's prayer for more time to produce witnesses with permission to leave station but the petitioner failed to produce his defence witnesses. Refusal to allow assistance by a legal practitioner is justified on the ground that there was no circumstances warranting representation by a legal counsel. Coming to the merits, it is contended that there was no guest house of the name of Seth Lodging and Boarding at Bhadohi which itself establishes that the bills of that guest house were false. Coming to the CBI report, it is disclosed that the CBI endorsed that the petitioner had submitted 11 bills supported by the hotel receipts issued by B.K.Seth and also that certain loans to B.K.Seth had been sanctioned by the petitioner. The CBI also recommended departmental action for major penalty. It is contended by the respondent that non-supply of the report of the CBI has not caused any prejudice to the petitioner. Modification of the charge-sheet, as alleged by the petitioner, is admitted. Similarly, the respondents defend the decision of the Inquiry Officer in refusing to hold an inquiry at Bhadohi and in refusing the petitioner's prayer for summoning MW1 and MW2 for further cross- examination and other decisions.