RAM NIWAS SHARMA Vs. ZILA SAHAKARI KENDRIYA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THEY are heard. This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 19/6/2009 passed by the Madhya Pradesh State Cooperative Tribunal in First Appeal No.217/2008.

(2.) PETITIONER was subjected to a departmental enquiry and nine charges were levelled against the petitioner. The enquiry officer found the charges proved against the petitioner. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner. Petitioner filed reply to the show cause notice. Thereafter, the respondent Bank terminated the services of the petitioner. Petitioner raised a dispute before the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies under section 55(2) of the MP Cooperative Societies Act. The Joint Registrar allowed the dispute. The Joint Registrar made an observation that the enquiry officer submitted report without taking any evidence of any authority or any employee, only on the basis of documents submitted before him. The Authority further observed that the order passed by the Bank was in contravention of service rules. The Tribunal, in appeal, appreciated the evidence and held that the documentary evidence was sufficient to prove misconduct of the petitioner and set aside the order passed by the Joint Registrar.

(3.) IN the present case, it is an admitted fact that no evidence was tendered by the Bank before the enquiry officer nor the petitioner was afforded an opportunity to cross examine witnesses. When no evidence was recorded, there was no question of cross examining the witnesses. Petitioner denied the allegations of misconduct. Even if some documents were produced, then also, it was necessary to examine the persons who produced the documents and thereafter it was necessary to afford opportunity to the petitioner to cross examine the witnesses. Even the evidence of the petitioner was not recorded. Hence, the enquiry conducted against the petitioner was against the statutory provisions of the rules. In such circumstances, the Joint Registrar, Cooperative Societies, had rightly set aside the order of termination. The Joint Registrar also held that the petitioner would not be eligible to get back wages.