- (1.) THROUGH the instant writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order of compulsory retirement dated 15.2.2000 as also the order dated 14.6.2000, passed by the appellate authority rejecting petitioner's appeal against the order of compulsory retirement. The petitioner has also challenged the word " compulsory retirement" as provided in clause 21 (iv) (b) of VI bipartite settlement dated 14.2.1995.
(2.) THE facts which are essential to be exposited are that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Armed Guard in the respondent - Bank on 21.10.1986. He was confirmed in service on 18.9.1987 and was also made regular in service with effect from 4.5.1987. Accordingly the petitioner continued to discharge his duties. However, on 9.9.1997 the charge sheet was issued to the petitioner with the following charges; "1. That you have refused without assigning any specific reason to take delivery of the ammunition on 17.7.97, when ordered verbally by the Manager at the time of handing over the Gun to you. 2.That you have refused to escord the cash remittance on 17.7.97 when ordered by the Manager. Therefore, the Bank had to seek help/ assistance of the local police official to escort the remittance. 3.That instead of taking precaution for the safety of the personnel and the cash belonging to the Bank, you have put the security in jeopardy by refusing to : (I) accept the ammunition and; (ii)escort the cash remittance on 17.7.97. You are, therefore, charged with the following misconducts on your part. (4)An act of misconduct of' willful insubordination/ disobedience of lawful and reasonable orders of the Management / superior vide clause 19.5(e) of BPS and (5)An act of misconduct of " doing act prejudicial to the interest of the Bank" vide clause 19.5(j) of B.P.S." The petitioner request the opposite parties to provide four documents, but the Inquiry Officer refused to provide so. Therefore, the petitioner submitted reply and denied charges. The respondent - Bank considering gravity of charge issued an order on 1.6.1998 to the petitioner to admit voluntarily his guilt with the condition that if he accepts so, the punishment of reduction in basic pay by one stage for one year period would be imposed. Since the petitioner did not admit his guilt inquiry proceeding was initiated against him.
(3.) ON 23.4.1999 he was provided the list of witnesses and documents and one Surjeet Verman was accepted as defence representative of the petitioner. Different dates were fixed in the inquiry. Meanwhile petitioner's defence representative was transferred on 15.7.1999. The petitioner informed the Bank and also requested to intimate the date of inquiry at his transferred place, i.e, Moradabad. On 14.9.1999 that was the date fixed for inquiry. The petitioner requested to adjourn the inquiry on the ground that the date of inquiry is not known to the defence representative and the defence representative was also busy in the election duty. However , the Inquiry Officer recorded the statements of the management witnesses and also compelled the petitioner to cross -examine them in absence of defence representative.;