J K RAWAL Vs. DENA BANK PALANPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is working in the clerical Cadre under the first respondent-Bank. The petitioner was charge-sheeted in a departmental enquiry for making certain allegations against the Regional Manager of the first respondent-Bank working at Palanpur. A departmental inquiry was conducted against the petitioner and a report was obtained. Thereafter instead of proceeding further to take the appropriate action the first respondent served the petitioner with another charge-sheet superseding the first one though containing the same charges. That led to the second inquiry report. By order dated 2/11/1992 the disciplinary authority accepted the report of the second enquiry and directed that the petitioner be reduced in salary to the next lower stage for a period of two years. The petitioner carried the said matter in a departmental appeal wherein amongst others he pointed out that holding of the second inquiry on the same charges was unteanable but the appellate officer rejected the appeal as well as this contention by his order dated 10/04/1993. Through this petition the petitioner seeks to challenge this order dated 10/04/1993 rejecting his appeal and whereby the order of punishment dated 2/11/1992 has come to be confirmed. This punishment led to further adverse consequences. The petitioner being in clerical cadre was eligible to appear for the Junior Management Grade - 1 Examination. By letter dated 19/04/1993 the petitioner was informed by the respondents that he cannot appear for the said examination in view of the provisions of the Bank Rules whereunder appearing for such an examination was impermissible for a period of three years from the date of a punishment. The petitioner has sought to challege this order dated 19/04/1993 also through his added prayer (AA).

(2.) When the petition came up for preliminary consideration before a learned single Judge (R.K. Abichandani J.) on 7/05/1993 by way of interim arrangement the following order was passed: By way of interim arrangement the petitioner may be permitted to appear at the examination scheduled to be held on 9.5.1993. His result will not be cleared. This interin arragement has no bearing on the merits of the matters and is subject to the contentions that may be canvassed on behalf of the bank including the contention regarding 2(P) settlement. Appearing at this examination will not be so construed as to create any right whatsoever in favour of the petitioner. D.S. Permitted. The respondent-Bank filed Letters Patent Appeal No. 259 of 1993 against the said order. The Division Bench comprising the Honble the then Chief Justice S. Nainar Sundaram and Justice S. D. Dave by its order dated 22/06/1993 dismissed the said appeal. The only submission pressed into service in appeal was that the order of the learned single Judge may not be quoted as a precedent and the Appeal Bench accepted the said submission by observing that the order of the learned single Judge may not necessarily form a precedent on the question before the Court.

(3.) As a result of the order passed by the learned single Judge on 7/05/1993 the petitioner was allowed to appear for the promotional examination. However the result thereof has not been declared. Therefore when the matter reached before me in the regular course for consideration for admission it was canvassed on behalf of the petitioner that since the petitioner has been allowed to appear for the examination and since his result has been withheld it will be desirable that the matter be heard finally at the earliest. Since the learned Advocate for the respondents had no objection to this course of action it was decided to hear the matter finally at this stage itself. Hence Rule is issued. The same is made returnable forthwith by consent and the learned Advocate. Mr A. K. Clerk for the petitioner and Mr. Prashant C. Desai for the respondents are heard.