HOMI B MUNSHI Vs. P G SHROFF

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner an officer in the Union Bank of India (Bank for short) has filed this petition challenging the order dismissing him from service.

(2.) Petitioner joined the services of the Bank as an officer on 1/04/1955 In 1961 he was promoted as Assistant Accountant on M 30/03/1982 petitioner was promoted to Senior Management Grade IV. Certain serious acts of omission and commission were reported against the petitioner during his tenure as Branch Manager at Kanpith Branch Surat. Petitioner was therefore by order Annexure B dated 10/03/1984 suspended from service of the Bank pending departmental inquiry. Notice dated 23/03/1984 was issued by the disciplinary authority against the petitioner calling upon him to show cause why disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated against him for the alleged acts of omission and commission. Petitioner gave reply to this notice on 11/04/1984 The disciplinary authority however was not satisfied with this reply and a charge-sheet was served on the petitioner on 6/06/1984 It is not necessary to set out the details of the charges levelled against the petitioner for the reasons which I will presently slate. Petitioner submitted his explanation in regard to the charges levelled against his to the disciplinary authority on 1/08/1984 A supplementary charge-sheet was thereafter served on the petitioner on 2/08/1984 Petitioner it appears had preferred an Appeal against the order suspending him from service. This appeal was; however dismissed on 27/09/1984 The disciplinary Authority appointed an Inquiring Authority to hold inquiry against the petitioner on the charges levelled against him. The Inquiring Authority commenced inquiry on 16/04/1985 On completion of the inquiry the Inquiring Authority submitted his report to the disciplinary Authority on 24/06/1985 In this report the Inquiring Authority against him. Copy of the Inquiring Authoritys report was however not supplied to the petitioner nor was the petitioner given any opportunity of being heard or making representation against the charges levelled against hid before the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority by his order dated 29/10/1985 dismissed the petition of from service. This order of the disciplinary authority along with the Inquiring Authoritys report was served on the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter preferred appeal against the order of dismissal on 12/12/1985 The appellate authority however dismissed the petitioners appeal on 3/05/1986 Being aggrieved by the order of dismissal passed against him the petitioner has approached this Court by way of this petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution challenging the legality and validity of the order of dismissal.

(3.) Petitioner has impugned the order of dismissal . on several grounds. However at the time of hearing of this petition Mr. B. J. Shethna the learned Counsel for the petitioner pressed only one ground of challenge namely the order dismissing the petitioner was bad on the ground that he was denied reasonable opportunity to defend himself inasmuch as the Copy of the Inquiring Authoritys report was not supplied to him nor was any opportunity of being heard given to him before the disciplinary authority before it passed the order dismissing him from service. Therefore the only question which arises for my consideration in this petition is whether the disciplinary authority was required to supply the copy of the Inquiring Authoritys report to the petitioner and give him opportunity of being heard after supplying such copy before passing the impugned order of dismissal from service against the petitioner.