SACHHIDANAND T GAVALI Vs. BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has questioned the legality and validity of termination of the order of removal of the petitioner from service. The petitioner was an officer working with the respondent-Bank of India. During the period from February 1985 to May 1995, the petitioner was working as a Custodian of Safe Deposit Vault Department. According to the Bank, the petitioner committed serious irregularities during the period and, therefore, a charge-sheet was issued against the petitioner, which was followed by a regular domestic inquiry. The Enquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty of almost all the charges. The report of the Enquiry Officer was accepted by the Disciplinary Authority and a punishment of removal from service was imposed.

(2.) SEVERAL contentions were raised before me. I do not find any substance in any of those contentions. It is firstly contended that the copy of the Investigating Officer's report was not supplied to the petitioner and, therefore, there is violation of principles of natural justice. Admittedly, the said report was not relied upon by the management during the inquiry. The Enquiry Officer was thoroughly cross-examined by the petitioner. In these circumstances, it is difficult to accept the contention of the petitioner that there was violation of principles of natural justice. It is next contended that the Enquiry Officer ought not to have relied upon the petitioner's statement recorded by the Investigating Officer wherein the petitioner has categorically admitted that he had received illegal monetary favours from various parties. It is urged that the statement was retracted by the petitioner and, therefore, it ought not to have been taken into consideration by the Enquiry Officer. The contention is without any merit. The record shows that the petitioner's statement was recorded over a period of four days in presence of an independent witness. The petitioner has not even cared to enter the witness-box to explain as to why he made confessional statement before the Investigating Officer. The next contention raised by the petitioner is that the petitioner's matter was wrongly referred to the C. V. C. for considering the issue of sentence. In its affidavit-in-reply, the respondent - Bank has explained the circumstances under which the petitioner's case was referred to C. V. C. and, therefore, the contention must be rejected. Lastly, it is contended that the Enquiry Officer ought to have recorded the petitioner's statement before concluding the enquiry. It is further contended that the failure to record the petitioner's statement has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner. It is pertinent to note that this contention was not raised by the petitioner either before the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority. It is only by way of amendment to this petition, the contention is being raised for the first time, which is clearly an after-thought. I have, therefore, no hesitation to reject the same.

(3.) IN the result, petition fails and the same is dismissed summarily.