LAWS(ALL)-2018-4-93

NARENDRA LAL Vs. CHAIRMAN ALLD BANK AND OTHERS

Decided On April 11, 2018
NARENDRA LAL Appellant
V/S
Chairman Alld Bank And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri S. K. Vidyarthi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P. N. Tripathi, learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner, praying for quashing of the punishment order dated 14.01.89, passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the enquiry report dated 30.07.1989 of the enquiry report and the order of the appellate authority dated 07.10.1989. Further direction has been sought for reinstatement of the petitioner with all consequential benefits, including arrears of salary, with 18% interest.

(3.) The facts of the petition are that while working as Clerk-cum- Cashier in Allahabad Bank Branch, Nav Yug Market, Ghaziabad, the petitioner was charge sheeted with charge dated 108.1987 under the provisions in Clause-19.5 (c), (e), (j) and (l) of first Bi-partite Settlement dated 19.10.1966 and 6 charges were leveled against him, regarding in-subordination, dereliction of duty and indecent behaviour with the officers of the Bank. On 05.05.1987, he submitted his reply to the charges alleging prejudice and caste bias. An enquiry officer was appointed and the petitioner and the Bank submitted their oral and written evidence before him. The enquiry was concluded on 22.04.1988 but the report was submitted after about a year on 30.01989. The petitioner was found guilty of Charge Nos. 1,2, 3 and 5. On charge no.4, he was found guilty partially and Charge No.6 was not found to be a charge. A second show cause notice dated 08.04.1989 was issued to the petitioner to submit reply to the proposed punishment as per finding of the enquiry officer and on his request, he was granted opportunity of personal hearing on 29.04.1989. On that date the disciplinary authority was out of station and the officer-in-charge got endorsement that he is submitting his written statement in lieu of personal hearing. The petitioner could not understand the import of the above endorsement at that time and later he sent letter dated 01.05.1989 and 07.05.1989 that the endorsement was obtained by the officer-in-charge by misleading him. However, without further opportunity of personal hearing the punishment order of dismissal dated 14.06.1989 was passed by the disciplinary authority and the appeal of the petitioner preferred against the same was dismissed by the order dated 07.10.1989 by the appellate authority. Thereafter he filed a mercy appeal before the Chairman/Managing Director which was also dismissed by the order dated 14.02.1990, on the ground of non maintainability as per the settlement.