SAMPADA JOSHI Vs. BANK OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Late Shri S. S. Joshi was an employee of Bank of Maharashtra. He died during pendency of the writ petition. His legal representatives are continuing the writ petition.

(2.) Late Shri S.S. Joshi was appointed as Clerk in the erstwhile Bank of Nagpur which merged in Bank of Maharashtra in 1961. Subsequently, he was promoted as officer and thereafter as Manager in April, 1978. In the month of April, 1980, meeting was arranged at Bhopal of Chairman of Bank of Maharashtra and the Branch Managers of the Bhopal Division. Certain remarks were made by Chairman against the family of the Branch Managers and employees. When the petitioner was asked to move vote of thanks, he criticised the Chairman Dr. M. V. Patwardhan, due to which he became revengeful. Petitioner was a union leader and he was President of the Award Staff. Bank of Maharashtra has framed regulations named as Bank of Maharashtra Officers Employees (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976. Certain irregularities were pointed out and the petitioner was suspended on September 22, 1980 at the instructions of Asstt. General Manager. A charge sheet was issued on April 8, 1981. Charges were denied by submitting a reply. Mr. V. J. Hingway was appointed as enquiry officer. Enquiry was directed to be held at Jabalpur whereas the petitioner was under suspension at Eklahra. The petitioner was getting only subsistence allowance. Enquiry was held at a different place so that he may not be able to attend the enquiry. He asked for TA/DA for attending the enquiry but no TA/DA was given to him. Management constrained him to attend the enquiry without TA/DA on the pretext that the matter was referred to the higher authority. Petitioner attended enquiry, but no defence counsel/assistant was provided; he could not cross-examine the. witnesses properly. He was forced to admit some of the charges. He filed a statement of defence Annexure P/7. An enquiry report was submitted on April 13, 1982, but copy of the enquiry report was not furnished to the petitioner. Relying on the enquiry report, order of dismissal was passed. For charge Nos. 3 and 4, the petitioner was dismissed from service with immediate effect, and for charge Nos. 1,2 and 5 punishment of removal from service was ordered.

(3.) Petitioner submits that Divisional Manager himself became complainant as well as judged the issue; there was allegation of disobeying the orders issued by Divisional Manager. Thus, initiation of enquiry by Divisional Manager and award of punishment by him is against the principles of natural justice. An order was issued on May 18, 1982. Another order was issued on June 7, 1982 which mentioned that for all the charges petitioner was removed from service. Order Annexure P/9 dated May 18, 1982 was issued by Divisional Manager whereas order dated June 7, 1982 (Annexure P/10) was issued by Asstt. General Manager. Petitioner filed an appeal challenging the dismissal. Appeal was dismissed on May 11,1985. The appeal was dismissed in mechanical manner. Review was also filed which was dismissed on April 2, 1987 as per Annexure P/14.