BANK OF INDIA Vs. PARAMESWARAN PADMANABHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant bank has preferred the instant appeal assailing the judgement and order dated 21st September, 2010 passed by a learned Judge of this Court whereby and whereunder the said learned Judge was pleased to dispose of the writ petition by quashing the charge-sheet issued to the respondent/writ petitioner, enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, the order of punishment issued by the disciplinary authority in respect of the respondent/writ petitioner and also the subsequent order of the appellate authority affirming the decision of the disciplinary authority.

(2.) The necessary facts which are relevant for the purpose of deciding the appeal are briefly narrated hereinafter :

(3.) The enquiry proceeding was started at the Burdwan Regional Office of the respondent bank on the aforesaid 20th September, 1982 and was abruptly concluded on 11th March, 1983. As a matter of fact, the said enquiry officer on March 7, 1983 fixed the next date of the enquiry on March 11, 1983 for production of first defence witness as per the list submitted by the writ petitioner. The said defence witness namely Sri Amitava Roy was an employee of the Asansol Branch of the appellant bank. The said first defence witness could not be produced on March 11, 1983 since the Manager of the Asansol Branch of the appellant bank did not release the said witness Sri Amitava Roy from the duty in order to enable him to appear before the enquiry officer at the place of enquiry at Calcutta. A prayer was made on behalf of the respondent/writ petitioner for adjournment of the enquiry proceeding. The enquiry officer asked the presenting officer of the appellant bank to ascertain the actual position from the Asansol Branch of the bank over telephone and adjourned the enquiry proceeding for some time on the same date. The enquiry was thereafter resumed at about 1-45 P.M. when the presenting officer of the bank could not appraise the enquiry officer about the actual state of affairs at Asansol since the telephone lines of the Asansol Branch of the bank were out of order. The enquiry officer however, did not adjourn the enquiry proceeding and abruptly closed the enquiry proceeding even without granting opportunity to the other witnesses to adduce evidence. Ultimately the enquiry officer submitted his enquiry report before the Disciplinary Authority on 16th September.