- (1.) RAKESH Sharma, J. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) UNDER challenge is an order dated 1-9-1989 dismissing the petitioner, a Branch Manager, working in Raebareli Kshetriya Gramin Bank, from the bank services as well as the appellate order dated 9-2-1990 rejecting the appeal preferred by the petitioner. The factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner was appointed as officer in Raebareli Kshetriya Gramin Bank on 27-11-1982. He worked in various branches of the Bank. The work, conduct and performance of the petitioner has always remained satisfactory. At the relevant time, the petitioner was posted as Branch Manager, Samrauta Branch of the Bank in District Raebareli. He was put under suspension on 18-5-1986, which was followed by the issuance of a charge-sheet on 12-5-1987. The following charges were levelled against the petitioner: (1) Misconduct while working at Gauriganj Branch pertaining to sanction of loan to borrowers who were not residents of the command area of the Branch; and (2) Temporary withdrawal of a sum of Rs. 22,000/-by operating a fictitious Bank account and re- depositing the said money after using the same for two weeks. However, before the issuance of the charge-sheet, the petitioner tendered his resignation on 7-5- 1987, but no action was taken on his letter of resignation. The departmental enquiry was continued with pre-determined mind. The petitioner submitted his reply to the charge-sheet on 10-6-1987. He indicated in his reply that he had already preferred a representation before Sri S. N. Srivastava, the then Chairman of Raebareli Kshetriya Gramin Bank. Sri Srivastava had worked as Chairman of the said bank from May, 1985 to July, 1986. As per petitioner, the then Chairman exonerated him of the first charge. In respect of second charge, the petitioner was asked to tender a written apology, with the assurance that thereafter some minor punishment would be awarded to him. Pursuant to this assurance, a letter was dictated by one Sri S. Phadia, the then General Manager of the Bank, which was in the nature of an apology of the petitioner, as asked by the then Chairman. It was signed by the petitioner. The then Chairman of the Bank, after submission of the said letter of apology, was changed. The petitioner was again served with a charge-sheet in respect of the same charges on 1-2-1988. One Sri B. P. Sharma was appointed as enquiry officer to conduct the enquiry. On 23-6-1988, the said enquiry officer was replaced by one Sri A. K. Srivastava, Manager Accounts. The then General Manager Sri S. Phadia, who had dictated the aforesaid letter on the instructions of the then Chairman Sri S. N. Srivastava and which was signed by the petitioner (being an apology), was appointed as Presenting Officer. Sri S. N. Srivastava, who was working as Chairman of the Bank has filed an affidavit on 11-7-2001 verifying the submissions made by the petitioner. Para 4 of the said affidavit is quoted below: " (4) That the petitioner denied his involvement and gave satisfactory evidence of his innocence. The matter was accordingly considered by the Bank after a careful consideration of the matter on record and taking into consideration that no loss had been caused to the Bank; and also that there was no other complaint subsisting against the petitioner, it was decided that the petitioner be reinstated in service and order of suspension be withdrawn. It was also decided that some punishment other than removal would be awarded to the petitioner. "
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has contended that at the outset, the petitioner had raised objection that the Presenting Officer was of the rank of General Manager i. e. senior to the petitioner, whereas the Enquiry Officer, Manager Accounts was subordinate to the petitioner. He was also subordinate to the Presenting Officer. This material objection was not taken note of and the enquiry continued with Sri S. Phadia as Presenting Officer. The petitioner vide letter dated 24-11-1988 requested for supply of some documents. A list of witnesses, whom he desired to examine, was submitted. The petitioner was not supplied with relevant documents and the witnesses sought to be examined by the petitioner were not called. The enquiry proceeded. The enquiry officer submitted his report. In addition to the defence made in the reply to the charge-sheet etc. , the petitioner had categorically indicated that the same charges have been examined, as conceded by the then Chairman, who had held the first charge to be not established and in respect of second charge, the petitioner had been asked to submit a written apology with the assurance that a minor punishment would be awarded to him. The said letter of apology has been taken note of on internal page 7 of the enquiry officer's report, but this letter of apology has been accepted as petitioner's admission of the charge by the enquiry officer. LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has laid stress that the submission of 'plea bargaining' has not been accepted by the enquiry officer and the punishing authority. The petitioner preferred an appeal in which he, at the outset, submitted that he had given his written apology on the assurance of the then Chairman Sri S. N. Srivastava that a minor punishment would be awarded to him but this aspect has not been considered by the enquiry officer. As per petitioner, he had altered his prejudice in signing the said apology but the same has not been considered by the enquiry officer, without any reason. Several other pleas, as submitted above, were raised by the petitioner in appeal. He, in the prayer clause of the appeal, had submitted that instead of punishment of removal, any other punishment be given to him. The appeal was disposed of on 9-2-1990. The petitioner was not afforded opportunity of hearing and the copy of order dated 9-2-1990 was not communicated to him. From the communication sent to the petitioner, it appears that the Board of Directors had not applied their mind and the appeal was dismissed with pre-determined mind, pre-judging the issues. The petitioner has led this Court through the contents of para 27 of the writ petition, wherein the above submission has been made. The reply to this submission is contained in para 24 of the counter-affidavit of the Bank, which is reads as under: " (24) That in reply to contents of paragraph 27 of the writ petition it is submitted that minutes of the meeting of the Board are not supplied or made available to a person. " This decision was not placed before the Court. The petitioner has further submitted that the witnesses were not examined in presence of the petitioner and he was not supplied with the documents.;