- (1.) HEARD Sri K.D.Tripathi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ramesh Singh, learned counsel for the respondent. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 06.03.1993 passed by Regional Manager, Disciplinary Authority, dismissing the petitioner from service.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the petitioner was working with respondent as Clerk/Cashier. When the petitioner was posted in the Satwara Branch he was suspended by letter dated 1991 on the alleged fraud committed by the petitioner. First information report has also been lodged against the petitioner along with Sri S.P.Singh, Special Assistant in the same branch and inquiry proceeding has been initiated. The petitioner has been provided the copy of charge-sheet dated 14.12.1992. Thereafter, vide order dated 08.01.1993 the respondent no.1 has communicated to the petitioner the decision to hold inquiry under the provisions of Chapter XIX of Bipartite Settlement to detect the truth of the charges levelled against the petitioner. From the inquiry report it appears that initially the petitioner has not cooperated in the inquiry proceeding but later on he appeared on the date fixed. The inquiry officer has given the opportunity to the management to put its case and in pursuance thereof Sri C.B.Mathur, Officer Incharge and Sri M.C.Rustogi appeared and presented the necessary documents. During the course of proceedings, the petitioner sought certain documents which have also been produced except the two documents, DE-6, Certificate regarding the non-availability of officer order no.54/90 to 46/91 and DE-7, Certificate regarding the non-maintenance/non- availability of the Arrangement register prior to 1.9.1990. The petitioner has been given opportunity to cross-examine both the aforesaid officers of the bank, who presented the case of the management. 3. The inquiry officer submitted the inquiry report on 02.02.1992. In the inquiry report the petitioner has been held guilty of the charges. On the receipt of the inquiry report, the disciplinary authority issued notice dated 20.02.1993 proposing the punishment of dismissal from the bank's service in terms of Clause 19.6 (a) of Chapter XIX of Bipartite Settlement. The petitioner has been given opportunity to reply and opportunity of personal hearing. The petitioner appeared before the disciplinary authority on 03.03.1993. During the course of hearing, certain questions have been made by the disciplinary authority, which have been replied by written submission. The said questions and reply are annexed as annexure CA-6 to the counter affidavit. The said proceeding has been signed by the petitioner. The English version and the reply of the petitioner is incorporated in the impugned order. By the impugned order the petitioner has been terminated from the service.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has not been provided the documents demanded by him. Further Regional Manager, who was disciplinary authority has not made the inquiry himself and, therefore, the entire proceeding is vitiated. He further submitted that supplementary affidavit dated 12.04.2012 has been filed annexing various documents to show that no fraud has been committed by the petitioner. Sri Ramesh Singh, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the Regional Manager was fully authorized either to conduct the inquiry himself or to appoint any person as inquiry officer. It is not necessary that Regional Manager should make the inquiry himself. He further submitted that in the inquiry proceedings the petitioner has been given fullest opportunity and further the disciplinary authority has also given full opportunity of hearing. The submissions made by the petitioner before the disciplinary authority clearly reveals that he has virtually admitted the fraud committed by him. With regard to the supplementary affidavit he submitted that the writ petition was filed in the year 1993 and the supplementary affidavit has been filed on 12.04.2012, after lapse of nineteen years annexing the various fresh documents, which can not be entertained at this stage. Therefore, the supplementary affidavit should not be entertained and is liable to be rejected. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record.;