P P BHATT Vs. BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenged his dismissal from service pursuant to the inquiry on the ground that the order of dismissal passed by the respondent authority on 31/12/1996, confirmed by the appellate authority vide order dated 21/7/1997, and further confirmed by the reviewing authority dated 28/1/1998 are bad as they were not passed in conformity with the principle enunciated in the provision of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and therefore, same deserved to be quashed and set aside.

(2.) THE petitioner was working as an officer in the respondent Bank Of India at Gopipura Branch during period from 28/11/1988 to 13/6/1994. One K.J. Adhvaryu, Staff Clerk committed fraud wherein the bank was made to suffer huge loss of Rs.1,01,00,000=00. The petitioner at the relevant time was working in Gopipura branch of the bank and later on transferred to Surat branch. Petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 29/7/1994 and subjected to disciplinary proceeding. Along with the petitioner many other officers who were found responsible in aiding and abetting the fraud perpetrated to Adhvaryu were also subjected to the disciplinary proceedings as various charge -sheets were issued against them. Petitioner was also issued charge sheet on 26/12/1994 enlisting five charges in respect of his aiding and abetting said Adhvaryu in perpetrating fraud upon the bank and also in respect of two payments of Rs.2000=00 and Rs.5000=00. The Inquiry Officer after concluding inquiry submitted his report, copy of the said report was furnished to the petitioner. The Inquiry Officer while furnishing copy of report on 11/7/1996 mentioned in the concluding statement which seems to be without any valid basis and was inconsistent with his findings on the various charges levelled against the charge -sheeted officer and the conclusion was not accepted. Petitioner replied to this vide his letter dated 31/7/1996 pointing out to the authorities that when the disciplinary authority is deferring from the conclusion of the Inquiry Officer, who is an independent authority, then it was duty cast upon the disciplinary authority to record its reasonings for disagreeing with the conclusion of Inquiry Officer and requested disciplinary authority's indulgence for making appropriate reply after receiving his submission which he made on 31/7/1996. The disciplinary authority did not respond to the letter of the petitioner dated 31/7/1996 and proceeded further and imposed penalty of dismissal from service vide order dated 31/12/1996.

(3.) THE petitioner preferred an appeal under his communication dated 11/3/1997. The appellate authority vide its order dated 21/7/1997 confirmed the order of penalty and rejected the appeal. The petitioner thereafter preferred review petition on 24/9/1997 to the executive director, Bank of India, ie., the reviewing authority, which also came to be dismissed by the reviewing authority under letter dated 28/1/1998. Being aggrieved by these orders petitioner has preferred this petition.