PREMKUMAR P PANDYA Vs. DENA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this Special Civil Application, moved under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the propriety, correctness and legality of the impugned order of dismissal passed against him, on 16/08/1980, as contained in Annexure 'H' to the Special Civil Application and has prayed for appropriate writs in the nature of certiorari and mandamus for quashing the said impugned order and directing the respondents to pay all arrears of salaries and allowances as admissible to him as an employee of Dena Bank and for directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service as if he has never been out of service.

(2.) The petitioner joined as a Clerk in Dena Bank, sometime in 1953 and was promoted as an Accountant in the said Bank in 1960. After the Dena Bank was nationalised, the petitioner was promoted as Branch Manager in April, 1970 in the said Dena Bank. On 5/01/1971, the petitioner was transferred as a Branch Manager to the Palanpur Branch of the said Bank. The petitioner's case is that, the Regional Manager of Dena Bank at Ahmedabad asked the petitioner to sanction loans to 25 Agriculturists, mentioned in the list stated to have been prepared by a businessman Shri Arvind Sakalchand Trivedi and a social worker Shri Vadilal Prahalad Choksi. The petitioner has alleged that, he was instructed by the Regional Manager to immediately sanction the loans to the said agriculturists and thereafter to complete the formalities required for sanctioning such loans. It is the case of the petitioner that, pursuant to such direction, he sanctioned such loans to the agriculturists named in the said list and the Regional Manager of the Bank, by his letter dated 28/04/1971, appreciated the petitioner's services as Branch Manager at Palanpur. Sometime in November, 1971, the petitioner was transferred to the Regional Office of Hie Bank. On 2 7/05/1972, a chargeshcct was issued to the petitioner for the impropriety in advancing agricultural loans between January and March, 1971 and on the very same date, by the order of the Deputy General Manager of Dena Bank at Bombay. the petitioner was placed under suspension. On 5/12/1972, the Bank appointed an Enquiry Officer Shri M. P. Vyas. On 16/06/1973, the Bank appointed another Enquiring Officer Shri Doraiswami. The petitioner lias alleged that, despite requests and reminders by the petitioner, no progress was made in the proposed departmental enquiry except appointment of Enquiring Officer, at times. A Criminal proceeding was initiated against the petitioner and 5 others, for offences punishable under Sees. 420, 467, 471 read with Sec. 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and under Sec. 5(2) read with Sec. 5(1 )(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Such case was instituted in the Court of Special Judge, Ahmedabad Citv, being numbered as Special Case No. 14 of 1977. After a protracted trial, the petitioner was acquitted of all the charges levelled against him in the said criminal proceeding. Accused Nos. 3 and 4, namely, Shri Arvind Sakalchand Trivedi, an Oil Engines Dealer, and his employee Shri Mahendra B. Khatri were convicted of the offences alleged against them and Shri Arvind Sakalchand Trivedi was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years, together with fine and accused No. 4 was also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for six months, with fine, NO appeal was preferred by the respondents against the order of acquittal passed against the petitioner by the learned Special Judge and the order of acquittal, therefore, became final. Despite such order of acquittal against the petitioner, the petitioner continued under suspension and the petitioner requested the Bank for revoking the order of suspension. The petitioner was informed by the Bank, by its order 23/05/1978, that the order of suspension would continue until the completion of the departmental enquiry. On 16/06/1978, the Bank informed the petitioner that Shri D. A. Patel would hold the enquiry and the petitioner would be informed about the date, venue etc. of such enquiry in due course. No step for completing the enquiry proceeding at an early date was taken and the petitioner was informed sometime in September, 1978 that steps were being taken by the Bank to conduct the enquiry soon and he would be informed about the date, venue etc. The departmental enquiry was, however, not commenced, but after two years of the last communication about the proposed departmental enquiry, the petitioner was informed, by order dated 16/08/1980, that the petitioner had been dismissed from service. It was informed that, by exercise of the power under Regulation 11 of the Dena Bank Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as "the Regulations"), the said order of dismissal was passed.

(3.) For the purpose of appreciating the contentions raised in the Special Civil Application for challenging the legality, propriety and validity of the order of dismissal, the charge levelled against the petitioner in the departmental enquiry may be stated as hereunder :