KAILASH SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the order of the Managing Director, Magadh Central Co-operative Bank Limited, Gaya, contained in Memo No. 740 dated March 4, 1995 (Annexure-1) whereby and whereunder he was dismissed from the service of the bank on holding a departmental proceeding and submission of the report by the conducting officer.

(2.) In short, relevant facts are that on April 11, 1989, a show- cause notice was issued to the petitioner with respect to certain irregularities committed by him during the] period, he was posted at Makhdumpur branch. In pursuance of the said show cause notice, he filed his show-cause on April 22, 1989, Later, the petitioner was served with another show-cause notice vide reference No. 105, dated July 31, 1989 by the Managing Director with respect to the charge of irregularities committed by him in the year 1987-88 in distribution of loan in Makhdumpur branch. The petitioner gave his reply on August 2, 1989. The disciplinary authority being not satisfied with the show cause placed him under suspension vide memo No. 268, dated September 21, 1989 on the charge that irregularities were committed by him in; distribution of loan. Thereafter, a departmental enquiry was initiated and the administrative officer of the bank was appointed as the inquiring officer. The petitioner was served with the charges vide memo No. 570, dated; February 15, 1990. On several occasions, the petitioner demanded orally the relevant documents from the inquiring officer but no document was supplied to him. His case is that he was not supplied with the relevant copy of the document along with the charges. However, the petitioner claims to have submitted his show cause on the basis of his memory. It is then alleged that the inquiring officer neither fixed any date of proceeding nor he sent any letter informing the petitioner about the time, date and place where he was going to commence the enquiry. It is also alleged that neither any witness was examined nor any document was produced and exhibited and thus, the entire proceeding was conducted behind the back of the petitioner without giving him any opportunity to rebut orally or documentary evidence in course of proceeding. However, enquiry report was submitted on March 24, 1994 and the disciplinary authority on consideration of the same passed the impugned order.

(3.) It is alleged that despite demand, the petitioner was denied a copy of the enquiry report. According to the case of the petitioner, the Joint Registrar, Magadh Central Co-operative Societies had inspected the branch of the petitioner and in his inspection report, he stated that the petitioner was not guilty of any charge and accordingly, he recommended for revocation of his suspension. Thereafter, the bank revoked the suspension of the petitioner vide memo No. 388, dated September 20, 1993. It is, thus contended that if the departmental proceeding would have been conducted properly and the petitioner could have been given opportunity he would have produced the inquiry report submitted by the Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Magadh Division, Gaya and he would have called him as a defence witness in the said proceeding in support of his case and in order to prove that no charge is made out against him.