CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA Vs. VIKRAM SINGH BAXLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The two appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated August 26, 1998 allowing the writ petition No.293 of 1998 and judgment and order dated August 21, 1998 dismissing the application for review passed by Altamas Kabir, J. In the writ petition, the writ petitioner/respondent challenged a decision of the respondent No. 3, Chief Manager, Central Bank of India, Main Office, in the capacity of disciplinary authority to inflict the punishment of dismissal from service by order dated January 12, 1998. The said order clearly records that disciplinary authority did not concur with the findings of the Enquiring Officer and recording reasons therefor passed an order of dismissal. By the said order, a punishment of dismissal was inflicted upon the writ petitioner/respondent, although no indication in the said order with regard to the compliance of the procedure has been given as provided in the Disciplinary action procedure of Central Bank of India. The learned single Judge felt that the said order is in the nature of a final order inflicting punishment and there was non-compliance of the provisions of the procedure as mentioned in the Central Bank of India in terms of paragraphs 8. 2 and 8.8. The learned Judge set aside the said order and directed the Bank to follow the said procedure. Being aggrieved the Bank thereafter also made an application for review of the judgment of the learned single Judge which was also dismissed. Hence both the above appeals were filed against the said judgment allowing the writ petition as also of the dismissal of the review petition.

(2.) We have considered the submissions of the parties. Both the appeals were taken up for hearing together. In our view, Orders of the learned Judge: one allowing the writ petition dated August 28, 1998 and the order of dismissal for review do not call for any interference. Paragraph 8.2 of the Disciplinary Action Procedure of the Central Bank of India provides as follows :-

(3.) It is clear from the said paragraph 8.8 that in the event the Disciplinary Authority decideds to award punishment, the Disciplinary Authority should issue a show cause memo to the employee giving in brief the finding and as to why the punishment should not be provided. In other words, the said procedure clearly indicates that a personal hearing should also be given.