SUSHANTA CHANDRA PAUL Vs. UNITED BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has challenged the Annexure-I Order dated 28,5.88 issued by the Dy. General Manager (P), United Bank of India, dismissing the petitioner from the service of the Bank, Annexure-L Order dated 14.12.88 passed by the General Manager (Marketing), United Bank of India, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the Annexure-I Order of dismissal, proceedings conducted against the petitioner as regards the allegations made in the charge sheet dated 13.8.86, the report by the Enquiry Officer along with his findings in the Departmental Proceedings against the petitioner(Annexure-J) and has prayed for setting aside the order of dismissal, the Departmental Proceedings, Enquiry Report and the appellate order.

(2.) The facts for the purpose of disposal of this Civil Rule are as follows :- The respondent No.l is a nationalised bank and the other respondents are its officers. In the year 1965 the petitioner was appointed Godown Clerk and thereafter he was promoted as an officer in the year 1976. During the period 1978-1985 he served as an Accountant in Hojai Branch and in the month of July, 1985 he was transferred to Tomenlong Branch of the respondent No.l and posted as Manager. On 18.2.86 the petitioner was suspended by Annexure-A Order dated 13.8.96 and served with articles of charges and the statement of allegations on which the charges were made by Annexure-A. By Annexure-B letter dated 1.9.86 the petitioner denied the allegations and the explanations submitted by the petitioner having not found to be satisfactory the authority decided to hold an enquiry regarding the charges levelled against the petitioner and pursuant to that an enquiry officer was appointed. One Promod Kumar, Nanda, Law Officer was appointed Presenting Officer. The enquiry officer informed the petitioner that the enquiry would be held on 23.3.87. The petitioner appeared before the enquiry officer. However, the Presenting Officer was not present. Hence the enquiry was adjourned. The next date was fixed on 11.5.87. However, the petitioner fell ill on 8.5.87 and accordingly the enquiry officer was informed by letter dated 9.5.87. The matter was then further adjourned fixing 18.6.87 as the next date. On 18.6.87 the petitioner could not attent because of disruption of rail communication and on that date the Presenting Officer was also not present. Accordingly another date was fixed on 27.7.87 for holding the enquiry at Dibrugarh. During that time the entire Upper Assam was in grip of heavy floods. On 25.5.87 the Door Darshan Kendra, Guwahati announced that the Dibrugarh Town was under high flood. Similarly on 25th, 26th and 27th July/87 the Newspapers reported that flood position at Dibrugarh was critical and the army was called upon. Accordingly the petitioner was advised to ask for an adjournment. On 27.7.87 both the Presenting Officer and the petitioner could not attend. The next date was fixed on 12.10.87. Due to urgent personal problems, the petitioner could not appear and therefore by letter dated 9.10.87 informed the E.O. about his inability and prayed for further adjournment. The petitioner wrote a letter dated 19.10.S7 to the E.O. giving the reasons for his. absence on 11.5.87, 18.6.87 and 27.7.87. However, these reasons were not considered acceptable and hence the enquiry was held ex-parte. The E.O. came to a finding that the charges were proved. A copy of finding was forwarded on 19.10.87 along with copies of enquiry proceedings. However, the enquiry report was not forwarded. The petitioner feels that the enquiry was not proper. It was arbitrary, unfair and unreasonable. According to the petitioner the enquiry officer acted in undue haste. Besides, according to the petitioner the procedure adopted by the enquiry officer in conducting the enquiry was in violation of the Regulations. No witness was examined. Not a single document was considered and the documents were simply filed. Only one omnibus finding was given. There was no separate findings in respect of various charges. The petitioner also submitted that the finding of the enquiry officer was perverse and in violation of the principles of natural justice. On 7.11.87 the petitioner submitted his representation to the Disciplinary Authority pointing out the irregularities in the ex-parte proceedings. The Disciplinary Authority by letter dated 28.5.88/2.6.88 sent the enquiry report and his findings and further intimated by the said letter that the petitioner was dismissed from services. The petitioner submitted that the order of the Disciplinary Authority refers to some oral evidence; but the enquiry proceedings reveal that no oral evidence was recorded. According to the petitioner the dismissal order had been passed mechanically. The representation filed by the petitioner was also not considered. Situated thus, the petitioner preferred an appeal on 8.7.88. It was. pointed out interalia that no written brief from the presenting officer was served on the petitioner as required under the Regulations. The appeal was also dismissed. Thereafter a review application was filled on 11.1.89. This was not disposed of till the writ application was filed. The contention of the petitioner is that while dismissing the petitioner the Regulations 6 (3). 6 (10), 6(13), 6 (18) and 6 (21) had been violated. Besides, no subsistence allowance was paid. Hence the present petition.

(3.) I heard Mr. N. Dutta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Mr. B.K. Goswami, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.