RAJ KUMAR Vs. UCO BANK AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the instant writ petition, petitioner has challenged the chargesheet dated 14.02.2009 (Annexure P1), dismissal order dated 31.05.2010 (Annexure P2), appellate authority's order dated 29.11.2010 (Annexure P3) and reviewing authority's order dated 28.08.2013 (Annexure P7).

(2.) Petitioner while working as Branch Manager of Kandhla Branch during the period between 13.08.2007 to 01.07.2008 on certain allegations charge-sheet was filed on 14.02.2009. As on the date of charge-sheet, petitioner was working as Assistant Chief Officer, UCO Bank, Zonal Office Chandigarh. Charge-sheet was issued by the AGM, UCO Bank Zonal Office, Bareilly. After receipt of the charge-sheet petitioner made communication on 02.03.2009 seeking for inspection of records. On 17.03.2009, respondent-Bank have permitted the petitioner to inspect the records. No time limit was stipulated for inspection of records. Further on 25.05.2009 petitioner inspected the records. In the meanwhile respondentBank proceeded to appoint Inquiry Officer on 02.04.2009. Thereafter, on 13.04.2009 respondent-Bank furnished list of documents. Thus, respondentBank have proceeded to hold inquiry against the petitioner and concluded the inquiry holding that the charges levelled against the petitioner were proved. Pursuant to the inquiring officer's report, disciplinary authority proceeded to impose the penalty of dismissal from service on 31.05.2010. Feeling aggrieved by the order of dismissal petitioner preferred appeal before the appellate authority and it was rejected on 29.11.2010. Petitioner is stated to have filed review application before appellate authority. During pendency of the review application he had filed supplementary review application in view of the later development relating to discharge in the criminal proceedings. Reviewing authority rejected the petitioner's claim on 28.08.2013. Hence the present petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has not been provided ample opportunity of submission of reply to the chargesheet with reference to documents which are going to be relied in the inquiry. Despite requisition respondent-bank have proceeded to appoint Inquiring Officer and thereafter proceeded to furnish list of documents on 13.04.2009 i.e. much after appointment of Inquiring Officer. These dates and events shows that respondent-Bank are biased when the regulations provides for furnishing of documents i.e. going to be relied in the inquiry in non-compliance of furnishing of documents resulted in denials of reasonable opportunity to defend the charges levelled against the petitioner. It was further submitted that reply to the charge-sheet has not been considered before the appointment of Inquiring Officer. In other words, hurriedly Inquiring Officer was appointed by the disciplinary authority. It was further contended that four witnesses have been cited and among them two witnesses were examined. One extraneous witness has been examined who is not cited as witness. It is also contended that petitioner was not permitted to take legal assistance and the respondent-Bank do not want to bear expenses of the legal assitance and they have denied assistance of Lawyer also. In view of these facts and circumstances from the date of appointment of Inquiring Officer, further proceedings till rejection of review application dated 28.08.2013 are liable to be set aside.