Arvind Kumar Tripathi, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. The present writ petition has been filed against the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority and appellate authority with the prayer to issue certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 19th January, 1994 passed by respondent No. 2, appellate authority/Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office Central Bank of India, Agra and order dated 7.1.1993 passed by respondent No. 3, Regional Manager/Disciplinary Authority, Central Bank of India, Agra/Etawah. Further prayer to issue mandamus commanding the respondents to pay salary of the petitioner from 10.9.1990 with interest and give promotion to the petitioner without taking into account the punishment awarded by the respondents No. 2 and 3.
(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was an employee of the Central Bank of India. He was under suspension and later on suspension was revoked. Since, Bank Manager, Branch Bharthana, District Etawah was on leave and during that period a fraud and embezzlement were detected to the tune of approximately Rs. 2,00,000/ - by the authorized collection agent of mini deposit scheme. The matter was reported by the petitioner to Higher Authority in the month of May, June and July, 1990. According to Counsel for the petitioner there was threat from the side of the agent as he was local person of the area, headed by V.V. Singh Chauhan and just to take revenge from the petitioner, victimized him. There was a complaint by one Smt. Laxmi Devi, class 4 employee in Bharthana Branch of Central Bank of India that in the morning of 25.7.1990, the petitioner, who was Accountant of Branch Office and was acting as Branch Manager, had behaved indecently with her after catching hold from behind and persuaded and tried to molest her. The petitioner was placed under suspension by respondent No. 3 by letter/memorandum dated 5 September, 1090, which was served upon petitioner on 15.9.1990. There was an order pending enquiry under Regulation 14 of Central Bank of India Officer Employees' (Conduct) Regulations, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulation). A preliminary enquiry was conducted thereafter a departmental enquiry was conducted. A registered memo dated 7.9.1990 was issued to the petitioner by respondent No. 3 and according to that written memo the allegation of 25.7.1990, the petitioner behaved indecently with complainant and petitioner was asked to show cause as to why the disciplinary proceeding should not be initiated against him. Thereafter, on 20.9.1990, the charge sheet dated 17.12.1990 was served to the petitioner, with the charges as follows: while functioning as Branch Manager (Officiating) at Bharthana branch during the period 23.6.1990 to 27.7.1990 Shri Anil Kumar Agarwal committed the following lapses. On the morning of 25.7.1990 while Smt. Laxmi Devi, Safai Karamchari was performing her duties. Shri Agarwal attempted to molest her. Reply dated 22.12.1990 was submitted by the petitioner against the charge levelled against him and he reiterated and reaffirmed the earlier reply dated 13.9.1990, 10.12.1990, 17.10.1990 and 22.10.1090. There was repeated request from side of the petitioner to supply the paper in respect of preliminary enquiry as well as the statement of complainant and witnesses etc. However, respondent No. 3 issued only a part of the complaint, not a complete copy. Hence again letter dated 22.1.1991 was given to the respondent No. 3 with the prayer to issue necessary paper even then the relevant papers were not supplied on which basis enquiry was initiated. Respondent No. 3 by order dated 19.3.1991 revoked the suspension order. During enquiry on 19.7.1991, a copy of the complaint was given to the petitioner by enquiry officer, which was addressed to respondent No. 2 not to respondent No. 3. There were two different complaints submitted to respondent No. 2 and respondent No. 3 in two different hand writing on different dates. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the copy of complaint dated 26.7.1990 was given to the petitioner, which was addressed to respondent No. 2. The enquiry officer had directed to the prosecution officer and management to furnish a preliminary enquiry report along with statements recorded by Mr. R.K. Jain of the delinquent officer. However, P.O. Central Bank, inspite of order of enquiry officer, did not supply the copies to the petitioner. The enquiry officer adjourned the proceeding on the request of P.O. fixing 12.9.1991 to enable him to collect the said investigation report on 12 September, 1991. Again the proceeding was adjourned on 10.10.1991. P.O. instead of supplying the enquiry report and statement of the witnesses again draw the attention of the enquiry officer to the earlier objection made by him. The objection of P.O. was that management was not relying upon investigation report to substantiate the charge against the delinquent officer. The papers of the preliminary enquiry recorded earlier during the investigation/enquiry, were not supplied. The petitioner submitted affidavits of Puran Singh, the Deputy Accountant, Central Bank of India and affidavit of Devendra Singh Sengher, the Agricultural Officer, Central Bank, Etawah, who were working in the same Branch on the date of complaint and who have not supported the alleged complaint dated 25.7.1990. The certificate issued by Sri Brijendra Kumar Gupta, Advocate, was also filed to show that the petitioner had attended his office at about at 8.00 a.m. and consulted till 8.45 a.m., in respect of complaint and FIR to be filed against the agent who committed a fraud and embezzled the amount of the Bank. Since consultation with the Counsel was in respect of the business of the petitioner, hence respondent No. 3 himself sanctioned T.A. bill of the petitioner from Bharthana Branch to Etawah by bus. The T.A. bill was sanction in the month of August, 1991 during pendency of the enquiry. After completing enquiry, the officer submitted his report to the disciplinary authority with the finding that charge levelled against the petitioner could not be proved by the P.O. (Annexure 19 to the writ petition). However, respondent No. 3, disciplinary authority did not agree with the finding of the enquiry officer and issued a show cause notice against the petitioner as to why the petitioner should not be punished for his misconduct. The petitioner submitted his reply. Respondent No. 3 by impugned order dated 7th January, 1993 which was communicated to the petitioner along with memo dated 15th January, 1993, punished the petitioner by "censure". Against that order passed by disciplinary authority, respondent No. 3, an appeal was preferred before respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 by impugned order dated 14th January, 1994 while deciding the appeal imposed penalty for reduction of pay scale one step in the time scale.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, in fact, no such incident took place. Since there was a complaint against collection agent of mini deposit scheme headed by V.V. Singh Chauhan, hence he was annoyed. The matter was reported by the petitioner to the higher authority in the month of May and June, 1999 due to that threat was extended from the side of Mr. V.V. Singh Chauhan and since the petitioner was persuading the matter and even went to the Counsel for consultation to initiate the proper proceeding, hence just to take revenge from the petitioner Mr. V.V. Singh Chauhan got him victimized. A conspiracy was hatched by the agent in connivance with Smt. Laxmi Devi, Class four employee of the bank. He was living in the same locality where complainant was living. In that complaint against the agent, subsequently, the agency of Mr. V.V. Singh Chauhan was terminated. At the relevant time in the morning of 25.7.1990, the petitioner was not present at the Bharthana Branch of the Bank, because in the morning he returned from Etawah after consultation with the Counsel. From 8.00 a.m. To 8.45 a.m., he was in the chamber of the Counsel. According to the certificate given by Sri Brijendra Kumar Gupta, Advocate, the petitioner reached in his office at 8.00 a.m., he remained there for about 45 minutes, even T.A. bill was submitted for Counselling, from Bharthana Branch to Etawah, was passed and sanctioned by respondent No. 3. The statement of two officers, who were present in the morning on 23.7.1990 in the bank were disbelieved by the authorities. He further submitted that time was not mentioned in the complaint. Two different complaints were given in different handwriting to respondents No. 2 and 3 with different version. Both the copies should have been supplied to the petitioner. The part of the complaint which was supplied does not show the date of complaint. Other complaint given to the respondent was dated 26.7.1990. The management was acting in bias manner. Respondents No. 2 and 3 had ignored the important aspect that the petitioner was being victimised due to the complaint filed against V.V. Singh Chauhan, mini collection scheme agent and a conspiracy was hatched against the petitioner. The copies of complaints and statement of witnesses recorded earlier during the enquiry/investigation were not supplied to the petitioner, on which basis enquiry was initiated, without any valid reason. The disciplinary authority and appellate authority refused to accept the recommendation of enquiry officer, and did not agree with the finding of the enquiry officer, though the enquiry officer submitted his report to the disciplinary authority with a categorical finding that the charge levelled against the petitioner could not be proved. He also contended that in view of the provision of Central Bank of India Officer Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976, the copies of statements of witnesses recorded earlier, should have been supplied. Hence, the impugned orders are liable to be quashed.;