RAJKISHORE PANDEY Vs. REWA SIDHI GRAMIN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been directed against the order dated 31-1-1984 (Annexure-A)dismissing the petitioner from service as well as against the order dated 12-11-1984 (Annexure-H) dismissing his departmental appeal.

(2.) AT the relevant time, the petitioner was working as Field Supervisor at beera, District Rewa, in the branch of Rewa-Sidhi Gramin Bank-respondent no. 1 (hereinafter referred to as the 'respondent-Bank' ). It has not been disputed that the respondent-Bank is an agency and instrumentality of the State and falls within the definition of State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India. On 4-2-1983 the petitioner was charge-sheeted that he had accepted illegal gratification amounting to Rs. 100/- on 16-12-1981 from one Mohd. Jalaluddin in connection with the adjustment of a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as subsidy granted by district Rural Development Authority. The currency notes of Rs. 100/- were alleged to have been recovered from the person of the petitioner in a trap operation conducted through Inspector of the State Vigilance Office, Rewa, but the petitioner was not prosecuted in the Criminal Court. The petitioner denied the charges and submited his reply that he was not authorised to adjust the subsidy amount against loan, Bank Circular dated 13-11-1981, which was a power expressly conferred exclusively on the Branch Manager.

(3.) THE management held an enquiry against the petitioner wherein the witnesses, whose statements were recorded by the Vigilance Inspector during the trap operation, were produced in evidence. Those witnesses were not examined-in-chief, but the Enquiry Officer allowed them to affirm their statements made before the Inspector, Vigilance and the representative of the petitioner was allowed to cross-examine the witnesses on their previous statements made to the inspector. The Management was represented by Mr. James Kurian, Inspector, cbi/spe, Jabalpur and the petitioner was represented by a co-employee mr. G. P. Dube. The Enquiry Officer found the charge of illegal gratification proved and on that basis the petitioner was dismissed from service by order dated 31-1-1984 (Annexure-A ). The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Board of directors of respondent-Bank, but the same was dismissed by order dated 12-11-1984 (Annexure-H ). These are the two orders which have been challenged by the petitioner in this petition on the ground that the statements of the witnesses recorded by the CBI Inspector under section 161 of the Code of criminal Procedure could not have been used by the Enquiry Officer in the evidence and thus the whole enquiry proceedings were vitiated as the same has resulted in denial of proper opportunity to the petitioner to effectively cross-examine the witnesses, and to expose their falsehood. It has also been alleged that a copy of the enquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner as a part of reasonable opportunity before imposing punishment and that the petitioner was seriously prejudiced as the Management was represented by a c. B. I. Inspector in the enquiry proceedings while the petitioner was represented only by a co-employee, who had no legal knowledge. The petitioner had also alleged that his appeal has been decided by cryptic order (Annexure-H) without application of mind and without giving reasons.