VINODCHANDRA BALKRISHNA PANDIT Vs. STATE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Vinodchandra B. Pandit the original petitioner in S.C.A. No. 3866 of 1984 has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal against the judgment and order passed by the learned single Judge on 9-5-1997 by which his petition has been dismissed.

(2.) The appellant-petitioner joined the respondent-Bank of India as a clerk on 18-3-1963. He was promoted to the cadre of officer and on 1-12-1972, he was working as a manager at Pilvai Branch of Bank of India from 1-7-1974 to 6- 3-1980. It is the claim of the respondent-bank that while he was working as Manager at Pilvai Branch, the petitioner had not worked with utmost integrity and honesty and that while he was working there he sanctioned 13 loans in favour of different persons. But for sanctioning of the said loans he had taken illegal gratification from the borrowers varying from Rs. 100.00 to Rs. 3,000.00. Against these 13 sanctioned loans, there was a loan of Rs. 10,000/- in favour of one Chhaganbhai Bababhai Chaudhary and while sanctioning said loan, the appellant-petitioner took illegal gratification of Rs. 1,000.00 and he also allowed Somabhai Chhaganbhai Chaudhary the son of Chhaganbhai Bababhai Chaudhary to sign the documents in the name of his father. All these activities of the present appellant came to light of the bank as it received various complaints. Thereafter, the bank had directed the officer of the Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.) to hold a preliminary inquiry. On inquiry it was found that the allegations made against him were true and correct. Therefore, on 4-8-1980 the appellant was served with a memo alleging commission of the said irregularities and illegalities. The appellant was given opportunity to have inspection of the record. Thereafter, the appellant sent his reply on 10-10-1980. In his reply all the allegations made against him were denied. Therefore, the respondent had decided to hold a departmental inquiry against him. Thereafter, the appellant was served with articles of charges and statement of allegations on 10-8-1982. An inquiry officer was also appointed on 30-9-1982. The inquiry officer held a detailed inquiry and he found that the charge against the appellant for taking illegal gratification was proved and on considering the report of the inquiry officer the disciplinary authority passed an order on 20-6-1983 imposing of penalty of removal from service. The appellant had preferred an appeal before the Zonal Manager on 12-8-1983 but the same was rejected on 7-10-1983. He had thereafter preferred a revision on 29-2-1984 and the same was also dismissed on 7-6-1984. He thererafter had filed this S.C.A. No. 3866 of 1984.

(3.) It was contended by the appellant in the said writ petition that the departmental inquiry held against him was a delayed inquiry and therefore, said inquiry must be quashed. It was also contended that inquiry held against him was against the principle of natural justice as he was denied copy of the preliminary inquiry report submitted by the C.B.I. It was also contended that there was no material to prove the charges against him and lastly it was contended that the penalty imposed on him was harsh one. The learned single Judge has negatived all these contentions raised by the petitioner by a detailed judgment on 9-5-1997 and hence the petitioner has come up before this Court by preferring this L.P.A.