O N SRIVASTAVA Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK AND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) U. K. Dhaon and Devi Prasad Singh, JJ. Heard Sri B. K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sheelendra Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties.

(2.) THE petitioner has filed the instant writ petition against the order dated 25. 11. 1988 by which the petitioner has been dismissed from services.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the opposite parties submits that there is no illegality in the impugned dismissal order passed by the disciplinary authority which is based on the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer. He further submits that the disciplinary authority has passed the impugned order of dismissal by interpreting the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and there is no deviation in the conclusion arrived at by the Enquiry Officer or the disciplinary authority. He further submits that there was no need to give any opportunity to the petitioner by the disciplinary authority before passing the impugned dismissal order as there is no provision under the Regulations of the Bank. He further submits that the effect of the dismissal order was also considered by the appellate authority and the appellate authority also on the basis of the material on record has arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief and the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority is just. LEARNED counsel for the opposite parties has relied upon the decisions of Hon'ble the Supreme Court P. D. Agarwal v. State Bank of India and others, (2006) 8 SCC 776; State of Punjab v. Normal Singh, (2007) 8 SCC 108 and Chairman and Managing Director and others v. P. C. Kakkar, (2003) 4 SCC 364 and on the strength of the judgments passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that the writ petition is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed.