NIRANJAN KUMAR PANDEY Vs. BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 20.12.1994 (Annexure -5) passed by the Regional Manager of the Bank whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been dismissed from service. The petitioner also prays for quashing the appellate order dated 28.8.1995 (Annexure -6) by which the appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, a Memorandum was issued on 28.1.1993 communicating inter alia to the petitioner that as per order of the Chief Executive Officer of the bank passed on 17.8.1987, the departmental inquiry would be held against the petitioner. The charge -sheet has been brought on record through the supplementary affidavit filed on 19.1.1996 and from a perusal thereof it appears that the charges leveled against the petitioner was that while he was discharging his duties as a special assistant in the Hazaribagh Branch from 18.10.1984 he had committed certain alleged frauds on the Bank as a result of which he had been suspended vide order 9.7.1993 pending issuance of charge -sheet and disciplinary proceeding.

(3.) SUBSEQUENTLY , the inquiry was held but only some documents were given. The inquiry was held on 31.5.1994 and the Inquiry Officer directed the Manager to provide the copies of the 12 documents mentioned in under Clause (a) of Annexure -2 and so far as the other documents mentioned under Clause (b), the Branch Manager was directed to show them to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner approached the Manager for supply of a document but that was not done and inspite of several requests, the relevant documents were not given as a result of which the petitioner was deprived of proper opportunity to prove his innocence. Nevertheless the Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 23.7.1994 which was not given to the petitioner and after giving a second show cause notice, the petitioner was dismissed from service vide order dated 20.12.1994 as contained at Annexure -5. Thereafter, he filed a departmental appeal but that was also dismissed. The petitioner has further stated that ho proper opportunity was given to him in as much some witnesses were either not cross examined while some were not even called for examination. The petitioner has also stated that the allegations to the effect of non existence of Sita Devi was not correct and that the Bank was not even in possession of the document to substantiate the charges.