H C GOVIL Vs. UCO BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We are called upon to decide the contentions raised by the appellant in this appeal which is filed being aggrieved by the order dated 30th March, 2006 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by him. In the said writ petition filed by the appellant-petitioner challenge was made to the order passed by the respondent bank on 29th August, 1992 dismissing him from service and also to the order dated 24th January, 1994 which is the order passed by the appellate authority confirming the order dismissing the appellant from service.

(2.) The case in hand has a chequered history. A departmental proceeding was drawn up against the appellant and a charge sheet was served on him after placing him under suspension. The show cause reply filed by the appellant against the charge sheet was found to be unsatisfactory, consequent upon which an Inquiry Officer was appointed to inquire into the charges. The charges which were drawn up against the appellant were inquired into by the Inquiry Officer and on completion of the same, he submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority. The Disciplinary Authority after complying with the provisions of the Rules, issued an order dismissing the appellant from service, which was later on confirmed by the Appellate Authority.

(3.) Both the aforesaid orders were questioned by the appellant by filing a writ petition which was registered as WP(C)4323/1994. The said writ petition came up for hearing before the learned Single Judge who disposed of the same by order dated 18th May, 1998 on the short ground that the order of dismissal was passed by the Deputy General Manager (Officiating) while under the Rules and Regulations, the competent authority was the Assistant General Manager. It was held that the aforesaid defect has to be set right before the matter could be gone into on merits. Consequently, both the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority were set aside with a direction to the Assistant General Manager, who was held to be the competent authority, to dispose of the matter by passing a speaking order. The learned Single Judge in the impugned order has extracted the relevant portion of the order dated 18th May, 1998 in paragraph -3 of the judgment, which again is extracted here for ready reference:-