RAM KUMAR SINGH Vs. SYNDICATE BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH the instant writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order of compulsory retirement dated 15.2.2000 as also the order dated 14.6.2000, passed by the appellate authority rejecting petitioner's appeal against the order of compulsory retirement. The petitioner has also challenged the word " compulsory retirement" as provided in clause 21 (iv) (b) of VI bipartite settlement dated 14.2.1995.

(2.) THE facts which are essential to be exposited are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Armed Guard in the respondent - Bank on 21.10.1986. He was confirmed in service on 18.9.1987 and was also made regular in service with effect from 4.5.1987. Accordingly the petitioner continued to discharge his duties. However, on 9.9.1997 the charge sheet was issued to the petitioner with the following charges;

(3.) ON 23.4.1999 he was provided the list of witnesses and documents and one Surjeet Verman was accepted as defence representative of the petitioner. Different dates were fixed in the inquiry. Meanwhile petitioner's defence representative was transferred on 15.7.1999. The petitioner informed the Bank and also requested to intimate the date of inquiry at his transferred place, i.e, Moradabad. On 14.9.1999 that was the date fixed for inquiry. The petitioner requested to adjourn the inquiry on the ground that the date of inquiry is not known to the defence representative and the defence representative was also busy in the election duty. However , the Inquiry Officer recorded the statements of the management witnesses and also compelled the petitioner to cross -examine them in absence of defence representative.