- (1.) Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 13th November, 1997, by which the Zonal Manager Central, U.P. Zone, Agra of the Punjab National Bank (hereinafter called the ''Bank'), imposed the major penalty of dismissal from service of the Bank and the appellate order dated 21.10.1998 by which the appeal filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order of dismissal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority. A further relief has been sought that a direction should be issued to the respondents to pay the post-retiral benefits to the petitioner. The petitioner, who was working as a Manager in the Bank, was served with a charge sheet dated 06.03.1996 for committing certain lapses. The petitioner did not submit any statement of defence even though the time was extended on his request several times. The disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner vide order dated 23rd April, 1996 and the Inquiry Officer was appointed. The Inquiry Officer found the charges proved against the petitioner. The copy of the enquiry report was thereafter sent to the petitioner for submission of his representation. The petitioner submitted his representation and after considering the same, the order was passed by the Disciplinary Authority. It was noticed in the order that the petitioner had engaged himself in reckless lending and thereby violated the lending norms and disbursed loans through middlemen. He also had demanded and received an illegal gratification from borrowers and failed to keep the limitation alive in borrowal accounts and incurred expenses beyond his vested powers; and on account of his reckless lending, the Bank had suffered huge loss to the extent of Rs.1,14,87,164.76 (Rupees One Crore Fourteen Lacs Eighty Seven Thousands One Hundred Sixty Four and Paise Seventy Six Only). The Appellate Authority also rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner. Hence the present petition. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record. None appeared for the respondents.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that while enquiring the matter, the principles of natural justice had been violated inasmuch as proper opportunity had not been given to him. We are unable to accept the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner for the simple reason that, in our opinion, the petitioner himself avoided appearing before the Inquiry Officer as is apparent from a bare perusal of the inquiry report dated 30th September, 1997, which clearly shows that in spite of repeated notices informing the date and venue of the enquiry sent to the petitioner through registered post as well as through courier and also through the messenger, the petitioner did not respond and so the enquiry was conducted ex parte. It was only on 24.01.1997 that the petitioner appeared when the presentation by the Presenting Officer was over and made a request to fix the next date of enquiry after a week due to his illness. This request was accepted by the Inquiry Officer and 13th March, 1997 was fixed but the petitioner again absented himself as a result of which the enquiry proceedings were concluded ex parte on 13th March, 1997. However, on the request of the petitioner, the Inquiry Officer granted one more opportunity to the petitioner and fixed 29th May, 1997. As the petitioner did not appear on the said date also, another opportunity was given by fixing 19th July, 1997. The petitioner failed to utilize this opportunity also and informed the Inquiry Officer that he would not be able to attend as his sonin- law was ill. This request was accepted by the Inquiry Officer and 2nd August, 1997 was fixed, which was noted by the petitioner. The petitioner for the reasons best known to him, did not turn up on the said date also. The Inquiry Officer however gave another opportunity to the petitioner and fixed the enquiry for 19th August, 1997. The petitioner failed to utilize all these opportunities and, therefore, the Inquiry Officer asked the Presenting officer to submit his written brief. The written brief was submitted by the Presenting Officer and a copy of the same was then sent to the petitioner for submitting his reply but the petitioner did not submit any reply to the same. It is, therefore, clear that in spite of repeated opportunities having been given to the petitioner, he did not avail the same. It is, thus, not open to the petitioner to now contend that proper opportunities had not been given to him.;