ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE Vs. SUMANTA KUMAR NAYAK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is filed by Oriental Bank of Commerce (hereinafter called 'bank' for short) against the judgment of the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition filed by one of its employees, one Sumanta Kumar Nayak challenging the departmental inquiry proceedings and the resultant punishment of removal of the petitioner was allowed by the learned Single Judge of this Court quashing both. Few facts would have to be necessary to understand the controversy involved.

(2.) Original writ petitioner, Shri Sumanta Kumar Nayak, was working in the bank as Senior Manager when he came to be served with a chargesheet. There was only one charge which was as follows:

(3.) The case pleaded by the petitioner (hereinafter called 'delinquent officer') was that he had passed his B. Com. (Hons.) examination in the year 1977 from Bhadrak College in the State of Orissa and after completing his M. Com. Degree from Utkal University, he came across an advertisement published by Banking Service Recruitment Board, New Delhi (hereinafter 'BSRB' for short) in the year 1981 inviting application from eligible candidates for the post of Probationary Officer in the various nationalized banks in the country. He pleaded that while submitting his application along with the necessary particulars and/or documents required by BSRB in the said advertisement, he had specifically made it clear that he was applying as a general candidate (and not as a Scheduled Tribe candidate). He referred to the four documents, (a) Original application submitted to BSRB with list of enclosure duly filled up by the petitioner and with his photograph affixed to the same, (b) Original admit card issued by BSRB with his roll No. printed thereon and his photograph affixed, (c) Original BSRB selection form with verified list of enclosure duly filled up by the petitioner and with his photograph affixed thereon and (d) Original employment form supplied by the bank at the time of the petitioner's entry into service duly filled up by him with his full bio-data enclosed and photograph affixed thereon. He further pleaded that he had never misrepresented before the BSRB and had never claimed that he belonged to Scheduled Tribe. The aforementioned four documents, however, were not filed by the petitioner along with the petition. The petitioner claimed that all through the bank was aware of the fact that he was belonging to the general category and not to the Scheduled Tribe category. He then referred to the show-cause notice served by the bank on him wherein it was alleged that while seeking employment as a Probationary Officer, he had submitted a forged taste certificate to the BSRB certifying that he belonged to the Scheduled Tribe. He further pleaded that he replied to the said show-cause notice and claimed that he was innocent as he had never claimed to be belonging to the Scheduled Tribe. A reference was then made to the chargesheet served upon the petitioner and the documents accompanying the chargesheet. It is contended that the copies of the marksheets relied upon by the bank did not pertain to the petitioner and that the bank should have, in fact, produced the documents (a) to (d), referred to earlier in the petition. A complaint was then made that these documents were never produced. He, therefore, pleaded that in that view he was denied as effective opportunity of conducting the defence in a suitable manner. He then made reference to his representation dated 7.11.2000 whereby he raised an issue of non-supply of the aforementioned documents (a) to (d) referred to earlier. He also made a reference that he has sought for a copy of a purported representation alleged to have been submitted by the petitioner to the Ministry of Finance, Government of India which was relied upon by the bank in the inquiry. However, even the said document was not furnished to the petitioner. It is then contended that though he had requested for the aforementioned documents, the bank took the stand that those documents were not traceable. He, therefore, complained that the inquiry, which proceeded without those documents, was no inquiry in the eye of law and the verdict in the same also was not borne out at all. The petitioner also pleaded that a document M-26 which was produced during the inquiry was a false document inasmuch as some overwriting was made to suggest that the petitioner had claimed the status to be belonging to Scheduled Tribe. The petitioner also refers to the findings recorded by the inquiring authority which were sent to Central Vigilance Commission, New Delhi ('CVC' for short) and the advise tendered by the CVC for imposing the penalty of removal. He then complained that though he was asked to submit his reply, he was not furnished with the copy of the "written brief on behalf of the bank submitted before the investigating authority. He, therefore, claimed that Regulations of 1982 were breached on account of this non-supply of written brief. The inquiry was assailed by the petitioner in the writ petition on various other grounds.