A B SINGH Vs. CHAIRMAN DENA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged the order of dismissal (Annexure - 31) dated May 30, 1990, against which his appeal dated June 30, 1990 (Annexure-32) was dismissed by the Appellate Authority, the decision of which was communicated, vide (Annexure P- 33) by a covering letter dated January 22, 1991, wherein, it is stated that the Deputy General Manager (Inspection), the Appellate Authority, after going through the appeal together with relevant records of the case did not find any reason to interfere with the penalty order of 'dismissal' passed by the Zonal Manager, M. P. Zone, Bhopal, the Disciplinary Authority.

(2.) SHRI K. P. Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the departmental enquiry on the charges levelled in the charge- sheet dated January 7, 1989 is against the principles of natural justice as the documents which form the basis of the charge-sheet; including the report of the vigilance cell were not supplied to the petitioner, therefore, he could not file the reply to the charge-sheet, the petitioner demanded copies and objected in the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer has noted the same in proceedings dated April 21, 1989. It was also contended that the Appellate Authority without due application of mind and without considering the grounds raised in the memo of appeal dismissed the appeal by a non speaking order, therefore, the order of the Appellate Authority as well as that of the Disciplinary Authority deserves to be quashed.

(3.) SHRI Rajendra Menon, learned counsel for respondent Bank contended that all the documents including the statement recorded during the vigilance enquiry were supplied to the petitioner on June 27, 1989, only the copy of vigilance report was not supplied as that did not form part of the enquiry. Reliance was placed on a decision of Supreme Court in the case of Anil Kumar v. Presiding Officer and Ors. , 1985 (3) SCC P. 378. As regards the appeal it was submitted that infact a detailed order (Annexure R-5) was passed in appeal on January 18, 1991, but that was communicated to the petitioner on May 12, 1992, during the pendency of the present petition. As the order of Appellate Authority is of affirmance, it does not require recording of reasons, as ruled by Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India v. S. S. Koshal 1994 Supp. (2) SCC p. 468.