N L JOGI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was initially appointed as a Village Level Worker in the year 1963 in the Development Department and was later on sent toagriculture Department as Agriculture Supervisor, where he worked upto 1978. In response to certain vacancies advertised in Jaipur Nagaur Anchalik Gramin Bank Jaipur (hereinafter referred to as the `the Gramin Bank') for the post of Manager, and on his application being made, the petitioner was selected as a Manager where he joined after resigning from his earlier post in the Agriculture Department. Hisappointment in the Gramin Bank was on probation for a period of two years. It is stated by the petitioner that his main work ws to supervise his branch and to recover the loans which were advanced to the villagers and as a part of his duties he had used to go for inspection in the villages also. He had visited certain villages on various dates in May and June, 1979 and had submitted his T. A. Bills alongwith re-ceipts. As desired he is said to have also sent his diary to the Head Office. Some of his T. A. Bills were doubted because of the mode of conveyance adopted by him. THE petitioner was informed on 18. 8. 1979 by the Manager Personnel Department to the fact that the petitioner had not performed the journeys on the mode of conveyance mentioned by him in the T. A. bills and, therefore, some allegations ofmisappropriation of the amount of the bank were levelled against the petitioner. It was stated by the petitioner that he had made the journey on camel cart and some time on foot and also through the bus. it was stated that when he visited the interior parts of the villages he had been changing from one cart to another cart and it was also stated by the petitioner that in case the journey on camel cart is not acceptedor if the journey camel cart is not permissible then in that case it should be treated as `on foot'. THE petitioner replied to the communication on 27. 8. 1979. But his services have been terminated vide order dated 15. 9. 1979 received by him on 18. 9. 1979 stating therein that he had tried to reimburse all the T. A. Bills on the strength of false money receipts and mentioning wrong mode of Conveyance andlooking to this misconduct the services of the petitioner were terminated from 18. 9. 1979. It is stated by the petitioner that no enquiry as required under Clause IX of the Service Regulations of the Gramin Bank was held. He filed an appeal against the order dated 15. 9. 1979.

(2.) THE appeal filed by the petitioner was decided the against the petitionerultimately with the result that the petitioner had to file D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1233 of 1979 which was decided o n 31. 10. 1988 by a Division Bench of this court. THE petitioner had taken the plea before the Division Bench that his representation did not amount to any admission. He had also stated that the order of termination casts a stigma on the petitioner and further he had stated that no enquiry whatso-ever had been held against the petitioner. THE writ petition was accepted and the appellate order dated 24. 11. 1979 was quashed with the direction that the same be decided afresh by the appellate authority in accordance with the observations made by the Division Bench in the above said writ petition. It was further observed by the Division Bench that the appellate order was not a speaking order and therewas no application of the mind while deciding the appeal. A direction was given that the appeal of the petitioner should be decided afresh. THE writ petition having been allowed, the appellate authority again decided the appeal on 27. 5. 1989 vide Annex. 2 and hence the present writ petition.

(3.) THE petitioner has challenged the order of termination Annex. 3 and the appellate order dated 27. 5. 1979 (Annex. A. 2 ). Initially no prayer was made for setting aside the order of termination Annex. 3 but vide a separate application made by thepetitioner, the prayer to set aside the order of termination has been now included.