REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

ARJUN HEMBRAM Appellant

V/S

PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

GOPAL CHANDRA BARIK VS. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK [REFERRED TO]
SOUTH BENGAL STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. JAHAR GOSWAMI [REFERRED TO]
JAGDISH PRAAAD SAXENA VS. STATE OF MADHYA BHARAT NOW MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
SURATH CHANDRA CHAKRABARTY VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. CHANDER KANT [REFERRED TO]
R P BHATT VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
RAM CHANDER VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
S N MUKHERJEE VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
TRANSPORT COMMISSIONER MADRAS 5 VS. A RADHA KRISHNA MOORTHY [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. RAVINDER NATH CHATURVEDI [REFERRED TO]
STATE BANK OF PATIALA VS. S K SHARMA [REFERRED TO]
DISCIPLINARY AUTHORITY CUM REGIONAL MANAGER VS. NIKUNJA BIHARI PATNAIK [REFERRED TO]
KULDEEP SINGH VS. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [REFERRED TO]
STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. T J PAUL [REFERRED TO]
CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR UNITED COMMERCIAL BANK VS. P C KAKKAR [REFERRED TO]
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. SHYAM LAL [REFERRED TO]
NARENDRA MOHAN ARYA VS. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD [REFERRED TO]
GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. A VENKATA RAYADU [REFERRED TO]
MATHURA PRASAD VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
UCO BANK VS. RAJINDER LAL CAPOOR [REFERRED TO]
STATE BANK OF INDIA VS. S N GOYAL [REFERRED TO]
ROOP SINGH NEGI VS. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK [REFERRED TO]
SHABBIR AHMED SHERKHAN VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
Dipankar Sengupta VS. United Bank of India [REFERRED TO]
JAYANTA KUMAR SIKDAR VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. SAIED MEERA [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, prior to his dismissal from service of the Bank, respondent no.1 following disciplinary proceedings, was functioning as Manager at branch office Bhimpur in the district of Midnapore.

(2.) The Chief Manager of the Zonal Office of the Bank at Calcutta issued charge sheet against the petitioner containing 12 (twelve) articles of charge vide charge sheet dated 9.9.1992. Most of the charges related to perfunctory discharge of duty by the petitioner leading to the likelihood of the bank facing huge financial loss. The petitioner in his reply to the charge sheet denied the material allegations levelled against him. The explanation furnished by the petitioner not having been found satisfactory, an enquiry was conducted by appointing an enquiry officer to unearth the truth. The enquiry officer submitted his report on 3.12.1993 returning the following findings:

(3.) The report of enquiry alongwith letter dated 25.9.1993 was furnished to the petitioner seeking his comments. He did not submit his comments. A further opportunity was extended to him vide letter dated 8.12.1993. However, the petitioner did not respond. It was presumed that he had nothing to say in respect of the report of the enquiry officer. Upon consideration of the materials on record, the disciplinary authority concurred with the report of the enquiry officer and decided to dismiss the petitioner from service of the bank with immediate effect in terms of regulation 4(h) of the banks Officer Employees (D&A) Regulations, 1977 (hereafter the said Regulations). By his order dated 28.3.1994, the disciplinary authority communicated the order of dismissal. It was further ordered that the petitioner would not be entitled to any salary for the period of suspension except subsistence allowance already paid.

Click here to view full judgment.

ARJUN HEMBRAM Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address