MAHAVIR SINGH Vs. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the validity and correctness of the order dated 23.8.2002 passed by the Disciplinary Authority / Respondent No. 3, order dated 14. 7. 2003 passed by the Appellate Authority / Respondent No. 2 and the order dated 29.12.2003 passed by the reviewing Authority / Respondent No. 1 during the departmental enquiry initiated against him.

(2.) THE brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are that the petitioner was working with the respondent Bank as Assistant Manager. A departmental enquiry was instituted against him for the alleged lapses committed by him in reckless granting of loans while working at Branch Office, Suhag Nagar, Firozabad by involving middlemen Select (supplier) firms, thus facilitating payment of amount of loan in cash to borrowers after deducting huge amount towards illegal gratification. On the basis of the evidence adduced and after hearing the concerned parties the Enquiry Officer/ Senior Manager, Zonal Office, Agra, on the basis of his enquiry report dated 28.6.2002 found all the charges proved against the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority / Respondent no. 3 while concurring with the findings imposed a major penalty upon the petitioner of "removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment in terms of Clause 4(i) of PNB Officer employees (D and A) Regulations, 1977" vide his order dated 23.8.2002. Appeal preferred by the petitioner against the said order was also dismissed by the Appellate Authority/ Respondent No. 2 by his order dated 14.7.21003 finding the appeal to be devoid of merits. A review petition preferred by the petitioner challenging the validity and correctness of the order dated 14.7.2003 was also dismissed by the Reviewing Authority / Respondent No. 1 vide order dated 29.12.2003 holding the charges framed against the petitioner to have been established on the basis of evidence adduced during enquiry proceedings and also holding the penalty imposed by the Disciplinary Authority to be commensurate with the proven charges. The petitioner before us has now challenged the aforesaid impugned orders and praying for his reinstatement with all back -wages.

(3.) THE entire thrust of the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner centres around ground No. IV of the writ petition which warrants an interference into the findings of facts and re -appreciation of evidence. The learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the decision rendered by Supreme Court in ABL International Ltd. and Another Vs. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd and Others, 2004 3 SCC 553 submits that this court would be well within its jurisdiction to interfere in the findings of fact and to re -appreciate the evidence recorded by the Enquiry Officer. Per contra Shri Dharmendra Vaish, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no legal question involved in the matter and the concurrent findings of facts cannot be interfered by the Court by re -appreciation of the evidence in the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He has relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in State Bank of India and Ors. Vs. Ramesh Dinkar Punde, 2006 7 JT 383 in support of his arguments. His further submission is that the alternative and effective remedy for the petitioner was to approach the Tribunal.