BHAGABATI CHARAN CHAND Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was serving as the Chief Chshier in the State Bank of India, Bhubaneswar Branch. He was on leave from 19. 6. 1978 (both days inclusive). There was detection of shortage of cash amounting to Rs. 13,000/ - (ten thousand) from the strong from on 3.7.1978. A further shortage of Rs. 4,00,000/ - (four lakhs) was detected on 5.7.1973. A departmental proceeding was started against the petitioner on the ground that the above shortage was due to the negligence of the petitioner and failure to discharge his duties with utmost devotion. The Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Bhubaneswar (O. P. No. 3) framed charges against the petitioner on 5.1.1930 as per Annexure -2 and appointed opposite party No. 4 as the Inquiring Officer as per Annexure -3. The petitioner duly submitted his explanation as per Annexure -4. The inquiry commenced on 2.5.1980. After attending the inquiry for some days, the petitioner avoided to take part in the same. So opposite party No. 4 completed the inquiry in the absence of the petitioner. Thereafter the petitioner made a representation to opposite patty No. 3 stating that he was not; given an opportunity of being heard in the inquiry. Opposite party No. 3, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, directed as per Annexure -9 that the inquiry be held de novo from the stage at which it was held ex -parte. After receiving Annexure -9, opposite party No. 4 by his letter dated 12. 5. 1931 (Annexure -5) intimated the petitioner that the inquiry had been fixed to 15. 2. 1981. According to the petitioner, he decided to attend the inquiry, but unfortunately he suffered from acute Arthritis on 24. 2. 1981; so he could not attend the inquiry on 25. 2. 1981. He sent an application for adjournment supported by a medical certificate granted by a doctor through a friend of his to opposite party No. 4 and prayed for allowing him fifteen days' time. As opposite party No. 4 refused to accept the same on 24.2.1981, he sent the application by registered post which was received in the office of opposite party No. 4 on 25. 2.1981. The application and the medical certificate are Annexures -7 and 8 respectively. The Inquiring Officer, without applying his mind and being biased, rejected the prayer of the petitioner and proceeded with the inquiry ex -parte. The petitioner thereafter approached opposite party No 3 for reconsideration of the matter, but opposite party No. 3 rejected the prayer of the petitioner as per Annexure -11. According to the petitioner, he has retired from service since 31. 5. 1980. Though almost five years have elapsed in the mean time, the provident fund and gratuity etc. due to him have not been settled or paid to him in spite of his repeated prayers. So the petitioner has come up with this writ petition and has prayed for quashing of Annexures -2 and 11 and to directed the opposite parties to settle his dues regarding the provident fund and gratuity etc. within a reasonable time.

(2.) OPPOSITE parties 1, 2 and 3 have filed a joint counter and opposite party No. 4 has filed his counter separately. According to the opposite parties, the petitioner after taking part in the proceeding for some time, avoided to attend the inquiry. So opposite party No. 4 was forced to conclude the inquiry ex parte. Against that the petitioner made representation to opposite party No.3 who directed de nove inquiry. On receipt of the order of opposite party No. 3, opposite party No. 4 duly noticed the petitioner that further inquiry would commence from 25.2.1981. But on the date of inquiry neither the petitioner not his representative attended the inquiry. The inquiry commenced at 10. 30. a. m. and opposite party No. 4 was forced to conclude the same in the absence of the petitioner. At about 12. 23 p. m. on 25. 2. 1981 opposite party No. 4. received the application of the petitioner and the medical certificate (Annexures -7 and 8 respectively). But by then the inquiry was practically over. So opposite party No. 4 rejected the application vide his order (Annexure -F). The representation made thereafter to opposite party No. 3 was also rejected. According to the opposite parties, the petitioner was afforded adequate opportunity, but be did not avail of the same and deliberately avoided to take part in the inquiry on some plea or the other. As the petitioner by his negligence caused loss to his employer, i. e., State Bank of India (O. P. No. 1), the gratuity and provident fund dues of the petitioner have been rightly withheld till the conclusion of the inquiry and such action is quite legal and justified.

(3.) AFTER considering the facts and circumstances of the case we are of the view that the petitioner was prevented by sufficient cause to attend the inquiry and opposite party No. 4 was not justified in concluding the inquiry. even after receiving the application of the petitioner asking for time supported by a medical certificate. The petitioner should be given an opportunity of being heard. The order of opposite party No. 4 in Annexure -F concluding the inquiry is, therefore, quashed and the inquiry is restored to the position where it was on 25.2.1981. Opposite party No. 4 is directed to fix a fresh date, give notice of the same to the petitioner and conclude the enquiry as expeditiously as possible. Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes that the petitioner shall attend the proceeding and shall not ask for adjournment.