T K SRIVASTAVA Vs. ALLAHABAD BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks quashing of order dated July 16, 1985, passed by the disciplinary authority (Annexure 11), order of the reviewing authority dated July 5, 1985 (Annexure 10), order of the appellate authority dated September 12, 1984 (Annexure-7) and the order of the disciplinary authority dated June 6, 1985 (Annexure 5 to the writ petition) and further direct the respondents to treat the petitioner as an officer of the Allahabad Bank and to accord him all the benefits and privileges of the continuity of service.

(2.) The facts of the case, in short, are that the petitioner joined the Allahabad Bank as a clerk on August 6, 1957, at Allahabad. Later, he was posted as Manager at Azamgarh in April 1979. He was then promoted as Middle Management Grade Scale II from December 29, 1982. He remained at Azamgarh from April, 1979, till February 26, 1983 when he was transferred to Gola Gokaran Nath Branch in Lakhimpur Kheri as the Manager. The Petitioner was served with a charge-sheet dated June 3, 1983, which is Annexure- 1 to the writ petition, with the charge that while functioning as Manager of the Bank at Azamgarh he allowed financial facilities to certain borrowers mentioned in the charge-sheet beyond his discretionary authority and without obtaining the proper sanction and also failed to complete documentation formalities to protect bank interest and continued to make advances to borrowers even after his discretionary power was withdrawn by the Regional Officer Allahabad on July 1, 1980. Relevant charges A and B are reproduced below:

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, though has taken a number of grounds in the petition, has confined to only one ground before us, viz. non-supply of the inquiry report to the petitioner before inflicting punishment amounts to violation of principles of natural justice, hence, the order is liable to be quashed. The petitioner clearly stated that findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer on May 22, 1984 were only given to the petitioner along with the punishment order dated June 6, 1984 itself and not before it. This fact is not in dispute. The respondents have stated that this communication was in terms of Regulation 9, which provides that the order made by the Disciplinary Authority under Regulation 7 which is a consequential action in pursuance to the inquiry report, shall be communicated to the officer "charged, who shall also be supplied with a copy of the report of the inquiry.