- (1.) RAKESH Sharma, J. Heard Sri S. P. Singh learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vinay Shanker who has put in appearance on behalf of opposite parties.
(2.) UNDER challenge are two orders, dismissal order dated 25-7-2002 and the appellate order dated 12- 12-2002, passed by the opposite parties, dismissing the petitioner from service and rejecting his appeal preferred against the order of dismissal. It emerges from record that at the relevant time, the petitioner was working as Officer/branch Manager of Oriental Bank of Commerce at Amethi Branch, District Sultanpur. The Branch Manager was vested with power for making the advance under Government Sponsored Schemes including the Rural Employment Generation Programme of Khadi and Village Industries Commission (hereinafter referred as 'kvic' ). The RBI Rural Planning and Credit Department Central Mumbai issued various circulars, guidelines for disbursement of loans for the purpose for rural industrialization and employment in the villages of India. The petitioner while working as Branch Manager had disbursed loan to various persons. Some irregularities were committed by the petitioner while discharging his duties as Branch Manager, Incharge at Amethi Branch of the bank. A departmental enquiry was conducted against him as per provisions of Regulation 6 of the Oriental Bank of Commerce Officers, Employee (Discipline and Appeal) Regulation, 1982. A charge-sheet dated 24-10-2001 containing six charges was issued against the petitioner. The petitioner had submitted application for supply of documents but the same were not supplied to him. However, a written brief/reply was submitted by the petitioner on 28-4-2002. The petitioner was made available a copy of the enquiry officer's report on 11-5-2002. The petitioner could not submit his reply and written comments on the enquiry officer's findings and he was issued an order dated 25-7-2002, dismissing him from services. The petitioner submitted a detailed appeal against the order of dismissal which was also rejected by a non-speaking order on 12-12-2002. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the whole departmental enquiry has been held in utter disregard of the principles of natural justice and is violative of relevant service Rules. The order was passed without considering the reply of the petitioner. The petitioner was not provided with the documents cited in support of the charges and the petitioner was not afforded opportunity for producing his defence witnesses. He had acted bona fidely while discharging his duties. He had allowed advance under the Rural Employment Generation Programme of KVIC in accordance with guidelines, circulars issued by the Bank. He had taken due caution and care while disbursing the loan to the persons. The main thrust of the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the facts of petitioner's issuance of advance and its collection were not considered by the enquiry officer and the Punishing Authority. The petitioner was not allowed opportunity to submit his written brief. The enquiry officer had not relied on the submission made by the petitioner during enquiry. The enquiry officer had concluded his finding by writing 'despite sufficient opportunity given, the DR failed to submit his written brief in the case'.
(3.) SRI S. P. Singh learned Counsel for the petitioner has further argued that the petitioner had submitted 16 documents in support of his version, in his defence but these have been excluded form consideration. The enquiry officer and the punishing authority have acted with a pre-determined mind and treated all the charges proved on the basis of the Management. No show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner to enable him to make his comments on the enquiry officer's report. Dismissal order is a non-speaking and non-reasoned order and has been passed in the absence of written brief of the petitioner. The punishing authority ought to have passed a detailed, reasoned order after considering the material on record.;