A C DHAMIJA Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, Mr. A. C. Dhamija, has appeared in person and argued the present writ petition by which he has challenged order dated 15th April, 1991 passed by the Regional Manager of New Bank of India imposing penalty of stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect. The petitioner has also challenged, orders passed by the Appellate Authority and the Reviewing Authority confirming the said punishment. The petitioner has made another prayer in the writ petition to quash the second charge sheet dated 15th May, 1992 issued by the respondent bank i. e. ; New Bank of India which stands amalgamated with the punjab National Bank. During the pendency of the present writ petition, penalty of reduction of rank by three stages was imposed on the petitioner pursuant to the charge sheet dated 15th May, 1992 vide orders dated 21st December, 1993 and 2nd March, 1994. Thereupon, the petitioner filed CM No. 2586/1994 challenging the subsequent orders dated 21st December, 1993 and 2nd March, 1994. This application CM No. 2586/1994 was allowed by order dated 20th July, 1995 with the direction that additional grounds raised in the application will form part of the writ petition.

(2.) AT the outset, I may note that after filing of the present writ petition, a third charge sheet dated 27th February, 1996 was issued to the petitioner and punishment of removal from service was imposed by the disciplinary authority vide order dated 17th October, 1996. Appeal of the petitioner against the said order of removal stands dismissed vide order dated 20th June, 1997 and the revision petition filed by the petitioner also stands rejected by order dated 8th November, 1997. The petitioner has not challenged orders of removal by filing a separate writ petition or by filing an application raising additional grounds or amending the writ petition. The said orders have not been brought on record and impugned by the petitioner. This Court, therefore, is not examining the third disciplinary proceeding, which has resulted in the order of removal.

(3.) I may briefly notice the two arguments which were raised by the petitioner. The present writ petition was initially listed before a Division bench as per the Rules. A Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 20th november, 1992 issued notice in the writ petition after noticing the allegation of the petitioner that there was some tampering with the original records. The division Bench also directed that the respondent bank should produce the entire enquiry proceedings including documents etc. before this Court on the next date of hearing. Notice was issued for 25th January, 1993 but the respondents could not be served on the said date. Order sheet reveals that thereafter directions were repeatedly given to the petitioner to file process fee. Appearance was made by the respondent bank for the first time on 17th February, 1994. At that stage, it was pointed out that New Bank of India has been amalgamated with punjab National Bank. Accordingly, memo of parties was directed to be amended and Punjab National Bank was impleaded as a party. The contention of the petitioner that original records were not produced on the next date of hearing by the respondent bank and, therefore, the allegation of the petitioner that the record of the disciplinary proceedings were tampered stands proved, cannot be accepted. Tampering of records has to be proved and established on the basis of material and documents and not by mere presumption on the ground that records were not produced on the first date of hearing when the respondent had entered appearance. The petitioner also referred to order dated 24th April, 1997 by which Criminal Miscellaneous Main No. 2684/1997 filed by the petitioner under sections 340 and 295 of the Cr. PC readwith Sections 191, 193 and 199 of the indian Penal Code was dismissed as being devoid of merits. The said order hardly helps the petitioner. I may note here that the petitioner had earlier filed Criminal Miscellaneous Main No. 222/1998. This application was disposed of on 12th March, 1997 after recording that in the writ petition "rule" had already been issued and the application in question should be numbered and listed along with main petition in due course. The said orders do not express any opinion on the merits of the case. It cannot be held that the petitioner is entitled to succeed in the writ petition only on the ground of the said orders.