GURMIT SINGH VIKHU Vs. PUNJAB AND SIND BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Challenging the order of dismissal from service, annexure A-l7 dated 16/04/07 passed by the disciplinary authority, on the basis of finding of guilt recorded against the petitioner in a departmental enquiry and the appellate order annexure A-19 dated 03/04/08, petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(2.) PETITIONER was working as a Officer-cum-Teller in the respondents' Jasbir Singh Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank & Others, 2007 1 SCC 566 bank, he was initially appointed as a Clerk on 03/04/197& in the Khar Branch Office, Mumbai, he was transferred to Branch Office Jabalpur in February, 1984 on passing the appropriate examination of banking conducted by the C.A.I.I.B., petitioner was made an Officiating Officer & Teller in the year 1985, vide annexure P-16. It is the case of petitioner that his work was to be supervised by respondent No.4 in accordance to the requirement of para 2.6 of the Staff Circular, annexure P-l. It is said that while working at Branch Office, Jabalpur, petitioner has submitted various complaints with regard to non-payment of officiating allowance to him by the concerned officer of the Branch, annexure A-2 dated 13/03/1990 is one such complaint filed by the petitioner. It is stated that from Branch Office Jabalpur he was transferred to Branch Office Maharjpur in June, 1990 and on the ground of certain fraud committed, petitioner was suspended on 23/06/1990. A F.I.R. was lodged, after a complaint was also registered with the Bureau of Economic Offences, Bhopal, in which no action was taken. By placing reliance on annexure P-5 dated 18/07/1990, communication made by the Economic Offences Bureau to the Sessions Judge Bhopal it is the case of petitioner that the Bureau had clearly indicated that no case is made out against the petitioner for proceeding in the matter. Reliance in this regard is made on another communication of the Bureau available on record as annexure P-6 dated 25/12/1990. However, it is the case of petitioner that subsequently a FIR was also lodged, inspite of the opinion of the State Economic Offences Bureau. On the basis of FIR lodged, it is the case of petitioner that a criminal case was registered against him for offences under Section 408, 420, 468 & 471 being Criminal Case No.2191/01, however without waiting for a final adjudication on the criminal case that was pending in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur, petitioner was charge-sheeted on 22/02/ 1993, on the same set of allegations, which constituted his prosecution in the criminal case and after conducting a departmental enquiry in total disregard to and in violation to the provisions of Clause 19.4 of the Bipartite Settlement annexure P-9, petitioner was dismissed from service on 29/02/1996. PETITIONER challenged the said dismissal in a writ petition, W.P. No.2515/97 and the said writ petition was decided in favour of petitioner vide order dated 21/06/2005 by a learned Single Bench of this Court. However, on a writ appeal being filed by the Bank, W.A. No.901/2006, a Division Bench of this Court remanded the matter back to the appellate authority for deciding the case of the petitioner without being influenced by a report of the hand writing expert. Available on record are copies of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No.2515/97 and by the Division Bench in W.A. No.901/06. On remand made by the Division Bench vide order dated 25/01/2007, it is stated that petitioner submitted further representations on 06/03/07, 30/03/07 & 01/04/07, vide annexures P-12, P-13 & P-15 along with certain documents annexure P-14 & P-16. However, without considering the same the disciplinary authority again by the impugned order annexure P-17 dated 16/04/07 rejected the plea of the petitioner, without proper consideration in accordance to the direction issued by the Division Bench in its order passed on 25/01/07. An appeal filed by the petitioner vide annexure P-18 on 16/02/08 having being dismissed by the impugned appellate order annexure P-19 dated 03/04/08, petitioner has again filed this writ petition.

(3.) THE third ground is to the effect that Bureau of Economics Offences, Jabalpur having refused to register any criminal case against the petitioner, action taken by the respondents is unsustainable and the litigation before criminal courts accounts to vexattious litigation and unsustainable, accordingly on the aforesaid grounds Shri Sanjay Sanyal prays for interference into the matter and grant of relief.