SITA RAM Vs. BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this petition, the petitioner has challenged orders dated 21st January, 2004, 9th February, 2004 and appellate order dated 23rd July, 2004. Shorn of the unnecessary details, the bare facts for the adjudication of this petition are that the disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. The copy of the inquiry report dated 22.8.2003 has been placed on record and marked as Annexure P 5. The Inquiry Officer has recorded the following findings against the petitioner as reproduced below:

(2.) AS a sequel to the inquiry report dated 22.8.2003, the petitioner was served with show cause (punishment) notice by the disciplinary authority on 21st January, 2004. Thereafter the disciplinary authority has awarded the penalty of punishment 'compulsory retirement from bank's service under Clause 6 (C) of the bipartite settlement dated 10.4.2002. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the imposition of the penalty awarded vide order dated 9th February, 2004 filed an appeal before the appellate authority. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal of the petitioner vide order 23rd July, 2004.

(3.) MR . Rakamant Sharma, Advocate appearing on behalf of the Bank strenuously contended that no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner by not supplying him with a copy of the inquiry report. Mr. Ramakant has also submitted that the petitioner was a workman within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and alternative remedy was available to him under the Act. A. have heard the parties and perused the record.