SAHEB SINGH Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated i.e.

(2.) Shri Virendra Lodha, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned charge sheet does not state as to under which Rules or Act, it had been issued that the charge sheet was issued on the complaint made by one Narpat Singh but before the enquiry officer, Narpat Singh stated that he had never moved any complaint before any authority nor did give Rs. 800.00 to the petitioner for its deposit in the Bank and similarly, other defence witness Hariram Meena stated that entries made in the A/c of the was not in the handwriting of the petitioner, which has been corroborated by the evidence of Basantilal (D.W.2). Thus, according to Shri Lodha, the inquiry officer has no jurisdiction or authority to disbelieve defence version of the complainant himself and in this view of the matter, the conclusion of the enquiry officer that charge No.1 stood proved, is not sustainable. That apart, the enquiry officer has not reached to a definite finding that the charge No. 1(b) is proved whereas has finding is that it seems to be proved and similarly, charge No.2 has been based upon surmises and conjectures inasmuch as there is no cogent evidence to prove it rather the enquiry officer, himself failed to conclude that charge No.2 was proved. As regards charge No.3 with regard to allegation of wilful absence from duty was also not proved on record.

(3.) Shri Lodha further contended that the disciplinary authority failed to consider material facts and evidence on record and therefore, the order of punishment of removal from service is not sustainable, inasmuch as the statutory appeal against punishment order has been dismissed by the appellate authority without a reasoned & speaking order, Shri Lodha cited the decisions in Union of India Vs. Tulsiram Patel (AIR 1985 SC 1416 : 1985 (3) SCC 398) : [1985(2) SLR 576 (SC)] , Ramachandran Vs. Union of India (1986 (3) SCC 103) : [1986(2) SLR 608 (SC)] , & Devki Nandan Sharma Vs. Union of India (2001 (5) SCC 404):12001(2) SLR 606 (SC)] .