GURMIT SINGH VILKHU Vs. PUNJAB AND SIND BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of Annexure -P -33 and P -36 dated 29 -2 -1996 and 6 -2 -1997, respectively, whereby petitioner has been dismissed from service. Petitioner has further prayed for reinstatement with all ancillary benefits.

(2.) THE case of petitioner is that he was appointed on the post of Clerk in Khar Branch, Mumbai of respondent No. 1 on 3 -4 -1978 where he worked upto February, 1984. Thereafter he was transferred to Jabalpur Branch and was assigned duties on Teller counter of the Branch in 1985. The working of Teller System is governed by directions given in Annexure -P -1. On June 16, 1990 the petitioner was transferred to Branch Office Maharajpur, Jabalpur. Vide letter dated 23 -6 -1990 (Annexure -P -2) he was placed under suspension. The Branch Manager of the Bank (respondent No. 4) lodged a report against the petitioner to the State Bureau of Investigation for Economic Offences, Bhopal on 26 -5 -1990. According to petitioner, Bureau came to the conclusion that no offence was made out in order to investigate the matter. Thereafter, respondent No. 4 lodged an FIR with the Police Station Omti, Jabalpur on 5 -2 -1991 against petitioner and on the basis of which a case for offences under sections 420, 419, 408, 409, 467, 468, 171, 201/34, Indian Penal Code was registered. A copy of the FIR is Annexure -P -4. This fact is no more in dispute that petitioner was acquitted by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur on 30 -10 -2001. Respondent No. 2 issued a charge -sheet against the petitioner on 22 -2 -1993 framing following charges: - 5(d) willful damage or attempt to cause damage to the property of the bank or any of its customers; 5 (j) doing any act prejudicial to the interest of the bank or gross negligence or negligence involving or likely to involve the bank in serious loss;" According to petitioner, relations of the Bank and its employees are governed by the Bi -Partite Settlement. Clause 19.4 thereof has been quoted in the memorandum of petition.

(3.) THE petitioner submitted reply Annexure -P -8 on 18 -12 -1993 refuting the charges. Thereafter petitioner moved an application before the enquiry officer for staying proceedings in view of Clause 19.4 (Annexure -P -9) on 12 -1 -1994. Petitioner also sought permission to get himself defended by a lawyer, but it was refused to the petitioner vide telegram Annexure -P -10. The petitioner made several requests to stay departmental proceedings, but it was not stayed.