NAWRATAN MAL KHAMESRA Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was working as Head Cashier and was posted in the Branch Office of the Bank of Udaipur. On 14 -11 -80 the petitioner was placed under supension with immediate effect on account of some fraud committed by the petitioner on 12 -11 -80. The petitioner was also directed not to leave Udaipur without prior permission. Respondent No. 3, by his communication dated 2 -2 -81 served a charge sheet on the petitioner and he was called upon to submit his reply within 7 days from the date of receipt failing which it was presumed that the petitioner has nothing to say in the matter. The petitioner denied the charges. Thereafter the Regional Manager by his communication dated 22 -5 81 informed the petitioner that enquiry Under Clause 19.22 of the First Bipartite Settlement is being held in respect of the charge sheet served on the petitioner on 2 -2 -81. Mr. P.D. Dubey was appointed as Enquiry Officer and Shri B.L. Jhanwar as Presenting Officer. But this order was later on changed. The petitioner filed a written reply. He wanted to cross -examine the certain departmental witnesses. He challenged so called charge sheet on various grounds also. He also prayed that he may be permitted to engage a lawyer in the departmental enquiry. This representation of the petitioner came to be replied by the Manager on 29 -6 -81 and it was conveyed to the petitioner that so far as his requirement is concerned, he should see the Presenting Officer. The petitioner approached the Presenting Officer and submitted his representation and prayed that as per the list, he may be made available the entire record. He wanted to obtain certain copies of the documents. Thereafter, by the communication dated 24 -8 -81 the petitioner was informed that letter dated 26 -6 -81 is self explanatory and no further action is required in the matter. Thereafter enquiry proceeded further. The petitioner was informed by letter dated 11 -2 -83 that the proceedings of inquiry have been completed and the petitioner was called upon to disclose as to whether he is desireous to produce documents/witnesses in his defence If he is interested then he was asked to do so within 10 days from the date of the receipt of this letter. The petitioner thereafter submitted an application to the Enquiry Officer and informed him that he desires to re -examine the witnesses who were exemined in his absence and he may be given an opportunity to cross -examine the same He further submitted that so far as the defence witnesses and documents are concerned, the same will be submitted after cross examining the management witnesses. The petitioner was informed by the Enquiry Officer that it is not possible to secure the presence of the witnesses for being cross examined by the petitioner. The petitioner protested but ultimately the Enquiry Officer recorded his findings and the petitioner was informed by communication dt. 11 -11 -83 that the Disciplinary authority is in agreement with the finding recorded by the Enquiry Officer and in view of the gravity of the charges, it proposed to dismiss the petitioner from service. The petitioner was called upon to submit his representation but no finding of the Enquiry Officer was made available to the petitioner along with the communication dated 11 -11 -1983. In these circumstances the petitioner submitted that in absence of those findings the petitioner was fully handicapped from making his representation against the proposed penalty of dismissal. He also prayed for the copy of the findings by his communication dated 14 -11 -1983. But on 8 -12 -1983 the petitioner received a letter dated 28 -11 -1983 signed by the Regional Manager that a penalty of dismissal has been imposed on him and he shall be deemed to have been dismissed from the Bank Service from the date of receipt of this letter, copy of the same is on record which is Ex. 14 dated 28 -11 -1983. Against this order of dismissal the petitioner preferred an appeal before the General Manager. He was informed that the General Manager will hear the petitioner on 6 -3 -1984 in his office at New Delhi. The petitioner sent a telegram stating therein that he is not in a position to attend on this date. He further sent a letter on 5 -3 -1984 along with a medical certificate. The next date for hearing was fixed on 15 -3 -1984. The appellate authority General Manager by his communication dated 6 -4 -1984 (Ex. 6) dismissed the petitioner's appeal. Aggrieved against this the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.

(2.) MR . D.S. Shishodia, learned Counsel for the respondents raised a preliminary objection that the petition is not maintainable because the petitioner has an alternative statutory remedy under the Industrial Dispute Act as the petitioner is a workman. Therefore, this Court should not in terfere till the petitioner has exhausted his statutory remedy. He submitted that if this court will interfere at this stage then the management will be deprived of a right to lead the evidence before the Tribunal. In support of his contention the learned Counsel for the respondents cited Bhanwar Lal and Ors. v. R.S.R.T.C. and antoher 1984 RLR 619, Habiba v. P.S.R.T.C. 1983(2) LIJ 76 and Dinesh Prasad and Ors. v. State of Bihar and Ors. 1985(1) SCC 343.

(3.) AFTER hearing both the learned Counsel for the parties, I think that the objection raised by Mr. Shishodia cannot be sustained. It depends upon case to case and no hard and fast rule can be laid down that this Court should not interfere in the matter where there is a statutory remedy available. It is true that normally this Court declines to interfere as far as possible when statutory remedy is available, but there are cases where matter can be disposed of without further investigation of the facts, thus there is no bar for this court to entertain the petition. I over rule the objection raised by Mr. Shishodia because in the present case I think that the matter can be disposed of without any detailed investigations.