I.M.QUDDUSI, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S. S. Chauhan and learned counsel Sri N.K. Seth appearing for Central Bank of India. This writ petition has been filed against the order of punishment of dismissal from services of the petitioner passed by the disciplinary authority vide order dated November 2, 1989 as contained in annexure No. 10 to the writ petition.
(2.) Sri S. S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner has raised several contentions touching the merits of the case also but we have considered the first question as to whether the petitioner has got reasonable opportunity to defend himself during the disciplinary proceedings. The inquiry officer, vide his report, dated May 31, 1989 held that charge of removal of cash of Rs. 70,000.00 as well as opening cash on July 11, 1986 are not proved on the basis of the evidence but the disciplinary authority held that the charges levelled against the petitioner in the charge sheet are found to be proved. The disciplinary authority has neither given reasons for disagreement with the inquiry officer nor the petitioner has been given an opportunity to show cause before passing final order of punishment intimated to him.
(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents has placed reliance on the following cases: 1. Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and others v. B. Karunakar and others, AIR 1994 SC 1074 : 1993 (4) SCC 727 : 1994-I-LLJ-162, in which it has been held that "While the right to represent against the findings in the report is part of the reasonable opportunity available during the first stage of the inquiry viz., before the disciplinary authority takes into consideration the findings in the report, the right to show cause against the penalty proposed belongs to the second stage when the disciplinary authority has considered the findings in the report and has come to the conclusion with regard to the guilt of the employee and proposes to award penalty on the basis of its conclusions. The first right is the right to prove innocence. The second right is to plead for either no penalty or a lesser penalty although the conclusion regarding the guilt is accepted. It is the second right exercisable at the second stage which was taken away by the Forty-second amendment." 2. Bank of India and another v. Degala Suryanarayana AIR 1999 SC 2407 : 1999 (5) SCC 762 : 1999-II-LLJ-682, in which it has been held that "the law is well settled. The disciplinary authority on receiving the report of the enquiry officer may or may not agree with the findings recorded by the latter. In case of disagreement, the disciplinary authority has to record the reasons for disagreement and then to record his own findings if the evidence available on record be sufficient for such exercise or else to remit the case to the enquiry officer for further enquiry and report.";