RAKESH KUMAR VERMA Vs. PRATHAMA BANK MORADABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) R. B. Misra, J. Heard Sri R. K. Jain, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Rahul Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Sri P. K. Singhal, learned Counsel for the respondents.

(2.) CAUSE shown in the restoration application is sufficient, therefore, the restoration application is allowed, order dated 07-7-2003 dismissing the writ petition in default is recalled, writ petition is restored to its original number and after restoring now the same is heard and decided on merits.

(3.) THE charge-sheet was accompanied by the documents and evidences referred and relied upon and the petitioner was expected to file reply, however, the petitioner also demanded certain documents on 17-8-1988 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition), which were not given to the petitioner and the petitioner was again expected to give a reply and the petitioner had submitted the reply. THEreafter, inquiry was conducted and the disciplinary authority after perusing the reply of the petitioner and inquiry report had passed the dismissal order and without any show cause notice and without serving the inquiry report the dismissal order was passed and the inquiry report was only served with the dismissal order dated 17-7-1991, however, the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the dismissal order too was dismissed summarily.