BALWANT RAI NAYYAR Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has challenged order of dismissal from the services of the Central Bank of India passed by respondent No. 2 (Disciplinary Authority) contained in Ref. No. PRSV/80/557, dated March 20, 1980, and the appellate order dated December 16, 1980, passed by respondent No. 3 (Appellate Authority) in this petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) THE petitioner was an employee of the Central Bank of India (for brevity, the Bank ). During the year 1972-73, he was posted as Sub-Accountant at its Nizam Road Branch at Ludhiana. A case under Sections 408/420, 468/467, Penal Code, was registered at Police Station Division No. 1, Ludhiana against him on the complaint of one Nahar Singh, who had a Savings Bank account with the Nizam Road Branch Ludhiana of the Bank. He was tried by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana and was convicted for the offence under Section 420, Penal Code vide judgment dated January 19, 1980. He was not sentenced to imprisonment but was released on probation of good conduct under Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act on his entering upon a bond in the amount of Rs. 7,000/- with one surety of the like amount so as to appear and receive sentence when called upon during the period of one year from the date of the order of the Court and in the meantime to keep peace and be of good behaviour. He was dismissed from service by the disciplinary authority vide order dated March 20, 1980. He filed appeal against the order of dismissal and the same was dismissed by the Appellate Authority (Respondent No. 3) vide order dated December 16, 1980. observing thus:-"the aforesaid appeal is being disposed of by the undersigned as a duly competent Appellate Authority under the Central bank of India Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976. In the said appeal, Shri Nayyar had requested that a personal hearing should be given. The undersigned acceded to this request and accordingly a hearing was given to him on November 27, 1980 at Chandigarh when he was permitted to appear along with any other Officer employee as his representative. Shri Nayyar, however, chose to appear personally and also chose to make only written submissions. I have gone through the papers on record and very carefully considered all the submissions made by Shri Nayyar, those contained in his appeal as well as in the written submissions made by him on November 27, 1980. After duly examining the same, I have to observe that:- The judgment indicates that merely because the member is given the benefit under the probation of Offenders Act, he is not necessarily required to be reinstated. It should be noted that in arriving at a decision in this case, I have taken into account the entire conduct of the delinquent employee, the gravity of the misconduct committed by him namely, the charge of cheating has been duly established against him and the impact which his misconduct is likely to have on the administration. I, therefore, come to the conclusion that considering all the relevant aspects, the punishment of dismissal is appropriate within the competence of the Disciplinary Authority and I, therefore, confirm that Shri B. R. Nayyar should be dismissed. "

(3.) THE petitioner has challenged the order of dismissal from service and the appellate order only on the ground that he was not given an opportunity to show cause against the proposed penalty of dismissal from service.