DINA NATH CHAUBE Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner, who happens to be the Branch Manager of the Respondent-bank namely Central Bank of India, has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India against the impugned order of punishment whereby the Petitioner has been removed from service.

(2.) Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner & Respondents.

(3.) According to learned Counsel for the Petitioner, on the basis of preliminary enquiry report, the charge-sheet dated 20 January, 1990, was served on the Petitioner containing as many as 29 charges. The preliminary enquiry was conducted by one Sri G B. Pandey. After receipt of the charge-sheet, the Petitioner had moved an application for supply of copy of the report of the preliminary enquiry report and other documents. At the face of record, it appears that the same was not provided to the Petitioner. The Respondent-bank claimed privilege with regard to the enquiry report and declined to supply the same. Under these circumstances, the Petitioner could not file reply to the charge-sheet. However, the Enquiry Officer had proceeded with the enquiry and recorded the statements of certain witnesses who were duly cross-examined by the Petitioner. At the defence stage, the Petitioner had moved an application for producing seven witnesses. However, out of seven witnesses, only four witnesses were permitted to be produced, whose names are Shyam Sunder Pandey, Chandra Prakash Mishra, Nakchhed Pandey and Gorakh Nath. On behalf of the prosecution/Respondent-bank, only one witness namely Sri G B. Pandey, who conducted the preliminary enquiry, was produced. Thereafter, the Enquiry Officer has submitted the enquiry report and in pursuance thereof, the impugned order of punishment has been passed by the Disciplinary Authority.