SITA RAM Vs. PALI CENTRAL CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who is an employee of a Co-operative Bank has challenged by this petition the order dated 2.7.1985 by which he was penalished after Departmental Enquiry and appellate order dated 2.7.1986 confirming the order of Disciplinary Authority.

(2.) With the assistance of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents, I have gone through the record of the petition. The petitioner has alleged certain irregularities in the matter of conduct of the enquiry. The same were alleged by the petitioner before the appellate authority also, as will be seen from the memorandum of the appeal filed along with this petition. The learned Counsel for the respondents objected to the maintainability of the petition on the ground that alternate remedy is available to the petitioner by way of further revision against the appellate order. The objection, in my opinion, is substantially correct. However, the petition is pending for last almost ten years and, therefore, I do not wish to decide the correctness of that objection or otherwise. I will proceed to decide the petition on merits of the case.

(3.) The irregularities which the petitioner has alleged, have not resulted in any miscarriage of justice and it cannot be said that the order of punishment is perverse.