- (1.) The petitioner seeks quashing of order dated July 16, 1985, passed by the disciplinary authority (Annexure 11), order of the reviewing authority dated July 5, 1985 (Annexure 10), order of the appellate authority dated September 12, 1984 (Annexure-7) and the order of the disciplinary authority dated June 6, 1985 (Annexure 5 to the writ petition) and further direct the respondents to treat the petitioner as an officer of the Allahabad Bank and to accord him all the benefits and privileges of the continuity of service.
(2.) The facts of the case, in short, are that the petitioner joined the Allahabad Bank as a clerk on August 6, 1957, at Allahabad. Later, he was posted as Manager at Azamgarh in April 1979. He was then promoted as Middle Management Grade Scale II from December 29, 1982. He remained at Azamgarh from April, 1979, till February 26, 1983 when he was transferred to Gola Gokaran Nath Branch in Lakhimpur Kheri as the Manager. The Petitioner was served with a charge-sheet dated June 3, 1983, which is Annexure- 1 to the writ petition, with the charge that while functioning as Manager of the Bank at Azamgarh he allowed financial facilities to certain borrowers mentioned in the charge-sheet beyond his discretionary authority and without obtaining the proper sanction and also failed to complete documentation formalities to protect bank interest and continued to make advances to borrowers even after his discretionary power was withdrawn by the Regional Officer Allahabad on July 1, 1980. Relevant charges A and B are reproduced below: "A. You allowed advances to several parties in most reckless manner going far beyond and/or in absence of your discretionary authority and without obtaining sanction from higher authorities. While allowing the advances you have neither obtained required security nor completed any documentation formalities to safeguard the financial interest of the Bank. Those advances were also not reported to your higher authorities and thus kept concealed from their notice. Such instances are indicated in the enclosure marked Annexure-1. B. You continued to allow the advances in spite of the fact that the Regional Manager Allahabad, vide letter No. RC/AB/34/D 43306 dated July 1, 1980 suspended your discretionary authority in the matter of advances and you were instructed vide said office letter No. RO/AE/ACD/D/2603 to stop all types of advances, yet you continued to flout the instructions of higher authorities. Your such action, therefore, is tantamount to wilful disregard to the instructions of your higher authorities." The petitioner submitted a reply on June 23, 1983 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition), which was found unsatisfactory. Hence, departmental enquiry was ordered as aforesaid and the Inquiry Officer recorded a finding on May 22, 1984 and forwarded it to the disciplinary authority. Since only two charges in the charge- sheet, namely, charges A and B were found proved, the disciplinary authority held on June 6, 1984 (Annexure 5 to the Writ petition), for Charge A punishment under Regulation 4(g) of Allahabad Bank Officers Employees' (Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulation 1976) for his dismissal which was held not to be a disqualification for future employment and for Charge B a punishment by reduction in his basic pay to the initial stage of Scale II, that is to say, Rs. 1,200/- per month in terms of Regulation 4(e). The petitioner preferred an appeal, which was partly allowed by the appellate authority on September 12, 1984, by holding that imposing two major penalties on the petitioner, viz. reduction in scale and also dismissal from service introduced an element of anomaly as well as legal infirmity since two punishments cannot be imposed in respect of charge contained in one single charge-sheet. Hence, it remanded the matter to the disciplinary authority for considering the point of punishment only. The disciplinary authority, after remand on December 10, 1984 (Annexure-8 to the writ petition) waived the punishment to the charge listed as Charge B while punishment for Charge A was maintained. Thus, it upheld the order of dismissal of the petitioner and deleted the punishment of reduction in scale. The petitioner thereafter under advice then preferred a review petition before the Chairman-cum-Man-aging Director through application dated May 31, 1985 (Annexure-9 to the writ petition). This authority on July 5, 1985 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) simply changed the dismissal order into order of removal from service. As a consequence the disciplinary authority passed another order dated July 16, 1985 (Annexure 11 to writ petition). However, the petitioner, being dissatisfied, has filed the present writ petition.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, though has taken a number of grounds in the petition, has confined to only one ground before us, viz. non-supply of the inquiry report to the petitioner before inflicting punishment amounts to violation of principles of natural justice, hence, the order is liable to be quashed. The petitioner clearly stated that findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer on May 22, 1984 were only given to the petitioner along with the punishment order dated June 6, 1984 itself and not before it. This fact is not in dispute. The respondents have stated that this communication was in terms of Regulation 9, which provides that the order made by the Disciplinary Authority under Regulation 7 which is a consequential action in pursuance to the inquiry report, shall be communicated to the officer "charged, who shall also be supplied with a copy of the report of the inquiry.;