LAWS(GJH)-2004-7-49

N R ZALA Vs. BANK OF INDIA

Decided On July 21, 2004
N.R.ZALA Appellant
V/S
BANK OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 29.11.2002 passed by the Disciplinary Authority of the respondent Bank, whereby the Disciplinary imposed a penalty of discharge of the petitioner from the services with superannuation benefits i.e. pension and/or provident fund and gratuity as would be due otherwise under the Rules and Regulations prevalent as on the date and without disqualification from future employment in terms of Clause 6(d) of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 10.4.2002. The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 4.3.2003 passed by the Appellate Authority whereby the authority has confirmed the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority.

(2.) The petitioner was serving at INS Valsura Branch as Cashier-cum-Accounts Clerk. He was served with a memorandum dated 9th September 2002 informing him that it was decided to initiate disciplinary action against the petitioner for the acts of misconduct alleged to have been committed by him during the course of his duties. The inquiry was fixed on 23.9.2002. However, on that day the petitioner did not remain present. Therefore the inquiry was adjourned to 25.9.2002. On 25.9.2002 the petitioner sought time to make arrangement for defence representative. The matter was therefore kept on 27.9.2002. On 27.9.2002 the Inquiry Officer completed the proceedings and submitted his report to Disciplinary Authority on 11.10.2002 holding the petitioner guilty for the charges levelled against him. The Inquiry Officer held that the charge of the employee doing any act prejudicial to the interest of the bank or gross negligence involving or likely to involve the bank in serious loss, as levelled against the CSE, stands proved against him.

(3.) Mr. Soni for the petitioner has submitted that the inquiry conducted was in violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as he was not given sufficient opportunity to meet with the allegations and to defend his case. He was not given sufficient time to prepare himself.