CHHABILDAS KARAMCHAND SHETH Vs. BANK OF BARODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Letters Patent Appeal arises out of the judgment and order rendered in Special Civil Application No. 896 of 1980 dictated on 26. 4. 2004, 18. 8. 2004 and 1. 9. 2004 dismissing the petition.

(2.) THE petition was preferred by the present appellant and the facts giving rise to the petition can be stated thus in narrow compass. The appellant was employee of the respondent bank working in the main office of the bank at Mumbai as Sectional Head. The disciplinary proceedings came to be initiated against him on 10. 7. 1971 on the charge of gross negligence which was likely to cause loss to the bank and of action prejudicial to the interest of the bank and of acts subversive of discipline. It was alleged that the petitioner issued Travellers' Cheque worth Rs. 30,000/- on 17. 12. 1970 on the basis of forged indent letter without properly verifying signature of the agent concerned which is contrary to the procedure prescribed for issuance of Travellers' Cheque. On conclusion of the departmental inquiry, the Inquiry Officer found that petitioner failed to take normal and reasonable care, that the petitioner was grossly negligent which resulted into loss to the bank and was likely to cause further loss to the bank, that the appellant had acted in a manner which was prejudicial to the interest of the bank and that acts or omissions on the part of the petitioner were subversive of the discipline because he totally ignored the Rules and the procedure and usual banking norms.

(3.) THE petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was founded mainly on the ground that the Appellate Authority lacked inherent jurisdiction of hearing the appeal of the present appellant. The contention was founded on the fact that the officer who had heard the appeal had retired from service before he took the decision on the appeal and, therefore, he did not have jurisdiction.