HARISH AGGARWAL Vs. BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition petitioner is seeking writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 13.11.1991. Annexure P/7 vide which petitioner was removed from service. A further direction is sought that the respondents be directed to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay, seniority etc.

(2.) In brief, the facts as stated in the petition, are that petitioner joined respondent- bank on 5.1.1982 as a Probationary Officer and has since been confirmed. Petitioner has been working as Staff Officer with the Bank and has been posted at various places all over the country. On 9.7.1987, petitioner was transferred to the main branch of the Bank at Chandigarh. During the month of April, 1989 to June 1989 when petitioner was dealing with share applications of different companies, he substituted some shares in the name of his wife. Vide memo dated 7.2.1991 respondents decided to proceed against the petitioner under Regulation 6 of the Bank of India Officer Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 1976 Regulations) for the acts of misconduct alleged to have been committed by the petitioner while he was posted as Staff Officer in the main branch of respondents at Chandigarh. Petitioner was served with the following charges:-

(3.) According to the petitioner the allegations as contained in the charge-sheet were completely untrue but on the assurance given by the Disciplinary Authority that the matter would be closed with a light warning, petitioner sent his letter dated 31.7.1990 formally admitting the allegations against him. Petitioner was under the impression that after admitting the allegations, he would not be served with the charge-sheet but when he was served with the charge-sheet dated 7.2.1991, he submitted letter dated 18.2.1991 stating therein that he had alreadyth admitted the charges. In view of this admission made by the petitioner, no enquiry was ordered against the petitioner. Respondent No. 3 who is the petitioners' Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 13.11.1991 Annexure P/7 imposed the major penalty of removal from service. A copy of the order has been attached with the petition as Annexure P/7. Petitioner is impugning this order in the petition on the ground that though the Disciplinary Authority had proposed that some increments of the petitioner be stopped but when the proposal was sent to the Vigilance Officer for his advice, he did not agree with this proposal but rather directed that the petitioner be removed from service. Petitioner's Disciplinary Authority again sent a proposal in August, 1991 to the Chief Vigilance Officer disagreeing with this directive that the petitioner should be removed from service and again stating the penalty of stoppage of increments be imposed upon the petitioner. The Chief Vigilance Officer rejected this proposal and again directed that the petitioner be removed from service. Respondent No. 3, thus had no option but to remove the petitioner from service.