- (1.) PETITIONER (which expression would include his representatives & heirs Smt. Ramaben Dinesh Jariwala and Shri Rakesh Dinesh Jariwala) D S Jariwala, since deceased, represented through his heirs Smt. Ramaben Dinesh Jariwala and Shri Rakesh Dinesh Jariwala was a Branch Manager of Dena Bank. (for convenience deceased D S Jariwala is referred as petitioner, hereafter).
(2.) PETITIONER was served with a chargesheet dated 06/05/1989 attributing to him certain lapses in discharge of his duties as Branch Manager, Parsana Branch. The inquiry was conducted against him in accordance with Dena Bank Officers Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulation, 1976 as he disputed such charges. The inquiring authority submitted its report / finding dated 23/11/1990 on the basis of documents / material produced on record during the inquiry and after considering argument the written argument / statement of defence. The disciplinary authority while relying upon the extraneous material i.e. observations made in a letter dated 05/01/1991 of Zonal Manager, dismissed the petitioner by an order dated 01/08/1991, after obtaining administrative clearance of such dismissal from his higherups. He, therefore, preferred SCA No.7040 of 1991 primarily making a grievance as regards nonsupply of observations made by Zonal Manager in his correspondence dated 05/01/1991. Since such observations were relied upon by the disciplinary authority, behind the back of the petitioner, the petition was allowed with the following observations: "Mr.P.G.Desai, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent Bank submits that .. However, he is not in a position to seriously dispute the fact that observations of former Zonal Manager dated 5th January, 1991 to which reference is made by the Disciplinary authority in the impugned order were admittedly not supplied to the petitioner and it cannot be gain said that the said observation made by the former Zonal manager dated 5th January, 1991 were taken into consideration by Disciplinary Authority while passing the impugned order dated 1st August, 1991. In view of the aforesaid infirmity which is writ large in the order dated 1st August, 1991 Mr.P.G. Desai is not in a position to effectively defend the said action of the respondent bank.." 2.1 This Court after considering T.S.Rabari Vs. Government of Gujarat, 1991 2 GLH 364also observed thus: "In the present case the order under challenge dated 1st August, 1991 recites that the disciplinary authority has referred to and relied upon observations dated 5th January, 1991 made by former Zonal Manager. Admittedly, the copy of such observations was not supplied to the petitioner. The order of disciplinary authority is therefore vitiated inasmuch as the material which has been taken into consideration by the disciplinary authority is not supplied to the delinquent by the disciplinary authority. The order passed by the disciplinary authority is therefore required to be quashed and set aside with a direction to reinstate the petitioner in service with full back wages. In view of the fact that I am not prohibiting the respondent Bank from proceeding further with the inquiry, it will be open to the respondent Bank to proceed further from the stage beyond furnishing of the copy of the report of the inquiry authority by supplying to the petitioner any material which the disciplinary authority intends to take into consideration over and above the material which was already there before the inquiry authority i.e. report of inquiry authority, observations of Former Zonal Manager dated 5 t h January, 1991 . The said materials are already supplied to the petitioner and if any other material is sought to be referred to and relied upon by the disciplinary authority, same shall be supplied to the petitioner and the petitioner shall be provided opportunity to deal with such material. The disciplinary authority shall thereafter proceed to pass final order in accordance with law." 2.2 The Court also observed: "In the result the petition is allowed. The order dated 1st August, 1991 is hereby quashed and set aside with direction to the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with full back wages and with liberty to respondent to proceed with the enquiry from the stage of supply of the report of Enquiry Authority and observations of former zonal Manager dated 5 t h January , 1991 any other material which is not supplied to the petitioner..."
(3.) IT appears that while the matter was remanded to the disciplinary authority for its consideration from the stage after supplying all the necessary documents to the petitioner as above, the petitioner entered into correspondence with the Bank and also addressed a Notice through an Advocate. He, thereafter, apprehended his unceremonious dismissal without supplying to him all the documents and therefore again preferred SCA No.1514 of 1992 which came to be dismissed as not surviving in view of the following observations of this Court in paragraph No.4 of the said order: "4. In this case, after issuance of the notice, affidavit in reply is filed on behalf of the respondents, wherein it is stated that they have supplied all the copies of the documents on which they rely. It may be stated that it may be that this preparation of synopsis would also include the correspondence that has taken place with the head office for the administrative clearance and must have entered the mind of the Disciplinary Authority and therefore, a copy thereof should also be given. Similarly, if at all there is any correspondence with the Chief Vigilance Officer and/or any other office of the Bank, a copy thereof should be supplied to the present petitioner who is a delinquent, before holding the delinquent guilty and punishing him. Now, if this direction is given, I do not think that there would be any grievance left out in the petition and therefore, it will not be useful to admit the petition. To issue such directions would be in the interest of both the parties inasmuch as the petitioner who is a delinquent as well as the authority who is carrying on the departmental inquiry, can complete the inquiry at the earliest and therefore, the purpose would be served and it will not be necessary to entertain the petition, as particularly it would not be survive or no grievance remains." 5. In that view of the matter, the respondents are directed, as stated above, to supply copies of the materials as stated hereinbefore and if no such correspondence between any officer or any other officer has entered into between the Disciplinary Authority and any other officer or body of the head office or any other body, the respondents should make it clear to the petitioner in their reply. Accordingly, the petition stands dismissed as withdrawn." What can be noticed from the above quoted observations of this Court is the fact that the petitioner's grievance as to nonsupply of certain documents, more particularly, the observations / synopsis of the former Zonal Manager dated 05/01/1991 was sought to be redressed by the directions in both the petitions.;