SUBASH CHAND Vs. NATIONAL BANK FOR AGRICULTURE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER stands dismissed vide impugned order dated 4.2.2000 passed by Managing Director of respondent -Bank arising out of two charge sheets dated 5.6.1996 and 13.1.1997 served upon the petitioner. Charges in both the charge sheets have been inquired into. Petitioner has challenged impugned order of his dismissal. Allegations contained in the writ petition are summarized hereunder:

(2.) PETITIONER came to be appointed as Clerk in November 1972 in Reserve Bank of India and on establishment of respondent -bank. Petitioner opted for service of NABARD and came to be posted as Assistant Development Officer on 24.5.1983 at New Delhi. Later on, he was transferred to Ahmedabad as Grade -A Officer where he remained upto March 1993 and thereafter, transferred to Jammu. On being posted at Ahmedabad, an enquiry was conducted against him in respect to alleged misconduct for which he was awarded punishment of reprimand on 29.8.1996. An appeal preferred against order of reprimand was disallowed being barred by time. While serving at Jammu, petitioner was served with charge sheet dated 5.6.1996 where under it was alleged that he was deputed as member of inspection team for inspection of Jammu District Co -operative Bank Ltd from 21.8.1995 to 15.9.1995. Petitioner abruptly left the inspection duty midway without permission of the Principal Inspecting Officer and unauthorizedly absented from the duty. While leaving inspection, petitioner wrote a letter dated 12.9.1995 making certain allegations against the Principal Inspecting Officer. It is stated in the charge sheet that petitioner could not substantiate allegation. Accordingly, he was charged for violation of Rules 26 and 38 of the NABARD (Staff) Rules 1982 for abruptly leaving the inspection duty without permission and unauthorized absence from duty. Petitioner replied to the charge sheet. Petitioner claims to have made certain representations asking for supply of copy of NABARD (Staff) Rules to enable him to understand the provisions thereof. Enquiry Officer proceeded exparte and submitted his report on 22.3.1997. It is alleged that inquiry is violative of principles of nature justice as also rules governing such enquiry. Petitioner was not provided any opportunity to explain his position and no notice of proposed punished was given to him.

(3.) FURTHER case of petitioner is while said enquiry was pending, petitioner sat on indefinite dharana on 19.11.1996 to press his demand for supply of copy of the rules for which he was suspended. Another charge sheet dated 13.1.1997 came to be served upon him. He also did not submit any reply allegedly in absence of copy of the rules and wrote certain letters to the authorities. It is stated in the petition that petitioner requested higher officials for referring the enquiry to some independent agency as the higher officials of the bank were involved with regard to the charge sheet and he did not expect true justice at the hands of the officials who were entrusted the job of conducting enquiry and who were also subordinate to the persons against whom petitioner had leveled allegations but the said demand of the petitioner was never accepted by the respondent -bank and they continued with their illegal designs. It is stated that during enquiry he was not allowed to summon witnesses nor any direction was issued for production of documents sought by the petitioner. Petitioner earlier approached this court in SWP No: 1631/1998 which came to be decided vide judgment/order dated 10.8.1999 whereby respondents were directed to pass a final order within a period of six months from today. If for any practical reason it is not possible to pass a final order respondent -authorities would either seek extension of time or would revoke order of suspension. On the basis of both enquires initiated against him, competent authority has passed dismissal order. In the detailed counter filed by the respondents, it is stated that during review of performance for the year 31.3.1993, petitioners performance was not satisfactory and adverse remarks were communicated to him. He was also provided counseling to which he did not respond. It is further stated that enquiry was held in respect to incident of year 1993 and punishment of reprimand was imposed upon him. Regarding charge sheet dated 5.6.1996, it is stated that same was served and he did not reply. An inquiry was initiated. Petitioner was repeatedly advised by Enquiry Officer to attend enquiry proceedings. He intentionally and willfully avoided to participate. After giving full opportunity to petitioner, Enquiry Officer submitted enquiry report to the competent authority. It is further alleged that petitioner sat on Dharna in the bank premises and caused obstructions and disrupted the normal functioning of the bank and also used derogatory and foul language/remarks against the management and harassed the customers. Bank authorities were compelled to approach the District Administration and accordingly he was placed under suspension vide order dated 20.11.1996. This happen during the pendency of enquiry in respect to charge sheet dated 5.6.1996. Final order was deferred. Fresh charge sheet dated 13.2.1997 was served upon the petitioner for sitting on unauthorized Dharana and using posters and banners in front of office premises for which he was placed under suspension. Enquiry was adjourned because of the fact he did not turn up. There were 56 sittings. During enquiry petitioner had submitted list for summoning Sh. P.Kotiah, the then Chairman, NABARD, Shri S. Subramaniam, the then General Manager, NABARD and Sh. C.M. Kamdar, the then General Manager NABARD. Enquiry Officer considered these witnesses to be irrelevant because they were not connected with the charge. It is further stated that witnesses recorded on behalf of management are Sh. R.L.Raina, Assistant General Manager, Smt S.S.Saigal, Assistant General Manager and Shri Y.P Aggarwal, Manager and these witnesses were not cross examined by him. There was no question of re -summoning of the witnesses which was dis -allowed as no ground was shown by the petitioner.