OM PRAKASH SINGH Vs. REGIONAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri K.D.Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ramesh Singh, learned counsel for the respondent. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 06.03.1993 passed by Regional Manager, Disciplinary Authority, dismissing the petitioner from service.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the petitioner was working with respondent as Clerk/Cashier. When the petitioner was posted in the Satwara Branch he was suspended by letter dated

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not been provided the documents demanded by him. Further Regional Manager, who was disciplinary authority has not made the inquiry himself and, therefore, the entire proceeding is vitiated. He further submitted that supplementary affidavit dated 12.04.2012 has been filed annexing various documents to show that no fraud has been committed by the petitioner. Sri Ramesh Singh, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the Regional Manager was fully authorized either to conduct the inquiry himself or to appoint any person as inquiry officer. It is not necessary that Regional Manager should make the inquiry himself. He further submitted that in the inquiry proceedings the petitioner has been given fullest opportunity and further the disciplinary authority has also given full opportunity of hearing. The submissions made by the petitioner before the disciplinary authority clearly reveals that he has virtually admitted the fraud committed by him. With regard to the supplementary affidavit he submitted that the writ petition was filed in the year 1993 and the supplementary affidavit has been filed on 12.04.2012, after lapse of nineteen years annexing the various fresh documents, which can not be entertained at this stage. Therefore, the supplementary affidavit should not be entertained and is liable to be rejected. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.