NATH PRASAD Vs. UTTAR BIHAR KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. A charge -sheet issued in a disciplinary proceeding resulted in an enquiry. The enquiry was held ex parte after the Enquiry Officer refused to allow the delinquent to engage his defence counsel. The enquiry report was accepted, whereupon an order of dismissal was passed. After having had lost in the departmental appeal, the delinquent approached the Writ Court. Before the Writ Court, the delinquent contended that the departmental proceedings since the stage of enquiry are vitiated inasmuch as there was denial of natural justice. It was contended that the Enquiry Officer did not permit the delinquent to defend himself and that the disciplinary authority refused to produce relevant documents, as were sought for by the delinquent, to prove his innocence. The Writ Court upon considering the rival contentions of the parties refused to interfere and, accordingly, dismissed the writ petition. The delinquent is, therefore, before us in the present appeal.

(2.) TWO days we have heard the counsel for the parties. Infraction of principles of natural justice at times goes to the root and vitiates the proceedings at and from the stage of infraction. In the instant case, there were two highlighted infractions of natural justice, namely, refusal to permit the delinquent to engage his defence counsel and, secondly, refusal on the part of the disciplinary authority to produce relevant documents, which were in its custody, which could prove innocence of the delinquent. There is no dispute that these infractions were made. The question is whether in the facts and circumstances of this case these infraction could go to the root of the matter vitiating the proceedings from the stage of infraction.

(3.) IN his two replies to the chargesheet the delinquent dealt with in extenso the third charge, which did not stand proved. In relation to the first and the second charges, the delinquent did not dispute the facts constituting the said charges, but stated that the amounts of loan which were thus obtained have been duly refunded, to which there is no dispute. The delinquent further contended that for the reasons indicated in his replies to the charge -sheet, he needed money and, accordingly, took loans in such fashion.