TIWARI K D Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, an officer of the erstwhile Hindustan Commercial Bank become an officer of Punjab National Bank on its merger with the latter Bank. It appears that certain disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner in respect of certain over drafts and other charges were continuing at the time of merger of Hindustan Commercial Bank, therefore, they continued to remain pending. During the course of the proceedings, the petitioner has filed this petition saying that in the enquiry, he should be allowed to have the services of a retired officer of the Bank as defence representative but since his prayer was not accepted therefore, this writ petition was filed. Initially an interim order was passed to the effect on March 30, 1989 that final order shall not be passed but the enquiry may go on. Later on this order was modified by order dated April 3, 1989 and the petitioner was allowed to engage a retired employee as defence representative and for completing the enquiry. The Bank however, did not complete the enquiry as according to the Bank's counsel, the engagement of retired Bank employee as defence representative was against the rules. The enquiry thus is still pending.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the inquiry has been lingering on for the last several years for no fault of the petitioner and despite the interim order of the High Court allowing the Bank to continue enquiry, the enquiry has not been conducted and therefore, the same should be quashed only on the ground of delay. He has also submitted that the demand of the petitioner for having the services of a retired Bank officer/employee was wrongly rejected as under Regulation 6(7), there is no bar for an officer/employee of the Bank who is facing departmental proceedings to have the services of a retired Bank employee.

(3.) Another argument has been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Suit No. 32 of 1985 was filed in the Court of the Civil Judge, Unnao by one Gupta Cold Storage, against the Bank in respect of the same over drafts in which the Bank had taken the stand that the over drafts, limit was duly granted by the Bank and the said suit has been decreed in favour of the plaintiff. Relying upon the said facts, it is being argued that there is no justification for continuing any enquiry.