- (1.) R. B. Misra, J. Heard Sri R. K. Jain, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Rahul Jain, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Sri P. K. Singhal, learned Counsel for the respondents.
(2.) CAUSE shown in the restoration application is sufficient, therefore, the restoration application is allowed, order dated 07-7-2003 dismissing the writ petition in default is recalled, writ petition is restored to its original number and after restoring now the same is heard and decided on merits. In this petition prayer has been made to quash the order dated 29-2-1992 rejecting the appeal of the petitioner and order dated 17-7-1991 dismissing the service of the petitioner. The petitioner was served with a charge-sheet dated 17/18-8-1988 in reference to Regulations 17 and 30 (1) of Prathama Bank Staff Service Regulations, 1980 (hereinafter in short called as 'regulations, 1980') on the following charges:- (a) The charge-sheeted employee refused to receive his transfer orders on dated 14-5-88 in presence of the other staff members of the branch, and left the branch about 10. 30 a. m. unauthorisingly; (b) The charge-sheeted employee misbehaved with the higher officials, present inside my cabin (Chairman's cabin) on 16-5-88 on the issue of cancellation of the said transfer orders; (c) The charge-sheeted employee misbehaved with the staff of the branch, committed the acts of disobedience towards the bank staff in spite of a warning issued to him in connection with an earlier incident of his quarrelling with one of his colleague. "
(3.) THE charge-sheet was accompanied by the documents and evidences referred and relied upon and the petitioner was expected to file reply, however, the petitioner also demanded certain documents on 17-8-1988 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition), which were not given to the petitioner and the petitioner was again expected to give a reply and the petitioner had submitted the reply. THEreafter, inquiry was conducted and the disciplinary authority after perusing the reply of the petitioner and inquiry report had passed the dismissal order and without any show cause notice and without serving the inquiry report the dismissal order was passed and the inquiry report was only served with the dismissal order dated 17-7-1991, however, the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the dismissal order too was dismissed summarily. Both, dismissal order as well as appellate order are under challenge in the present writ petition on the ground that by not providing opportunity of hearing and by not serving the inquiry report before passing dismissal order and not providing of second opportunity of hearing, the entire action of the respondents is vitiated.;