ANIL KUMAR AGARWAL Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. The present writ petition has been filed against the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority and appellate authority with the prayer to issue certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 19th January, 1994 passed by respondent No. 2, appellate authority/Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office Central Bank of India, Agra and order dated 7.1.1993 passed by respondent No. 3, Regional Manager/Disciplinary Authority, Central Bank of India, Agra/Etawah. Further prayer to issue mandamus commanding the respondents to pay salary of the petitioner from 10.9.1990 with interest and give promotion to the petitioner without taking into account the punishment awarded by the respondents No. 2 and 3.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was an employee of the Central Bank of India. He was under suspension and later on suspension was revoked. Since, Bank Manager, Branch Bharthana, District Etawah was on leave and during that period a fraud and embezzlement were detected to the tune of approximately Rs. 2,00,000/ - by the authorized collection agent of mini deposit scheme. The matter was reported by the petitioner to Higher Authority in the month of May, June and July, 1990. According to Counsel for the petitioner there was threat from the side of the agent as he was local person of the area, headed by V.V. Singh Chauhan and just to take revenge from the petitioner, victimized him. There was a complaint by one Smt. Laxmi Devi, class 4 employee in Bharthana Branch of Central Bank of India that in the morning of 25.7.1990, the petitioner, who was Accountant of Branch Office and was acting as Branch Manager, had behaved indecently with her after catching hold from behind and persuaded and tried to molest her. The petitioner was placed under suspension by respondent No. 3 by letter/memorandum dated 5 September, 1090, which was served upon petitioner on 15.9.1990. There was an order pending enquiry under Regulation 14 of Central Bank of India Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulation). A preliminary enquiry was conducted thereafter a departmental enquiry was conducted. A registered memo dated 7.9.1990 was issued to the petitioner by respondent No. 3 and according to that written memo the allegation of 25.7.1990, the petitioner behaved indecently with complainant and petitioner was asked to show cause as to why the disciplinary proceeding should not be initiated against him. Thereafter, on 20.9.1990, the charge sheet dated 17.12.1990 was served to the petitioner, with the charges as follows:

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, in fact, no such incident took place. Since there was a complaint against collection agent of mini deposit scheme headed by V.V. Singh Chauhan, hence he was annoyed. The matter was reported by the petitioner to the higher authority in the month of May and June, 1999 due to that threat was extended from the side of Mr. V.V. Singh Chauhan and since the petitioner was persuading the matter and even went to the Counsel for consultation to initiate the proper proceeding, hence just to take revenge from the petitioner Mr. V.V. Singh Chauhan got him victimized. A conspiracy was hatched by the agent in connivance with Smt. Laxmi Devi, Class four employee of the bank. He was living in the same locality where complainant was living. In that complaint against the agent, subsequently, the agency of Mr. V.V. Singh Chauhan was terminated. At the relevant time in the morning of 25.7.1990, the petitioner was not present at the Bharthana Branch of the Bank, because in the morning he returned from Etawah after consultation with the Counsel. From 8.00 a.m. To 8.45 a.m., he was in the chamber of the Counsel. According to the certificate given by Sri Brijendra Kumar Gupta, Advocate, the petitioner reached in his office at 8.00 a.m., he remained there for about 45 minutes, even T.A. bill was submitted for Counselling, from Bharthana Branch to Etawah, was passed and sanctioned by respondent No. 3. The statement of two officers, who were present in the morning on 23.7.1990 in the bank were disbelieved by the authorities. He further submitted that time was not mentioned in the complaint. Two different complaints were given in different handwriting to respondents No. 2 and 3 with different version. Both the copies should have been supplied to the petitioner. The part of the complaint which was supplied does not show the date of complaint. Other complaint given to the respondent was dated 26.7.1990. The management was acting in bias manner. Respondents No. 2 and 3 had ignored the important aspect that the petitioner was being victimised due to the complaint filed against V.V. Singh Chauhan, mini collection scheme agent and a conspiracy was hatched against the petitioner. The copies of complaints and statement of witnesses recorded earlier during the enquiry/investigation were not supplied to the petitioner, on which basis enquiry was initiated, without any valid reason. The disciplinary authority and appellate authority refused to accept the recommendation of enquiry officer, and did not agree with the finding of the enquiry officer, though the enquiry officer submitted his report to the disciplinary authority with a categorical finding that the charge levelled against the petitioner could not be proved. He also contended that in view of the provision of Central Bank of India Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976, the copies of statements of witnesses recorded earlier, should have been supplied. Hence, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed.