- (1.) D. C. Srivastava, J. This appeal, with the consent of the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent, is being finally disposed of at the admission stage.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the parties agreed that there is no necessity to summon the record of lower court. The appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28th April, 1995 of Sri R. P. Pandey, District Judge, Jhansi, reversing the judg ment and decree of the trial Court passed on 23rd August, 1994. The brief facts essential for disposal of this appeal are that the appellant was employed in the Central Bank of India, as an Officer. There was allegation against him that he had embezzled rupees two lacs between 13-3 19/8 to 24-6-1984. When the matter was detected, the appellant con fessed the alleged embezzlement and deposited a sum of Rs. 1,30,000 with the Bank and further assured to deposit another sum which is found to have been embezzled. Departmental proceedings were initiated against the appellant. Enquiry Officer was appointed, who was other than the Disci plinary Authority. The enquiry officer framed charges, served the same upon the appellant. Dates for enquiry were given. The appellant appear ed only on one date through his representative, but on subsequent dates he did not appear. Notices of all the dates of hearing were given to the ap pellant. Since the appellant failed to appear in spite of due intimation of dates given by the enquiry officer, the enquiry proceeded ex pane. Report of enquiry officer was submitted against the appellant. It was considered by the disciplinary authority, who agreed with the finding of the enquiry officer. Ultimately dismissal order was passed by the disciplinary autho rity against the appellant. The copy of enquiry report was also sent to the appellant along with the order of dismissal. The appellant filed appeal against the order of dismissal known as 'departmental Appeal', which also failed. Thereafter he filed a suit challenging the order of dismissal on various grounds. The first ground was that he was not afforded reasonable opportunity of hearing ; that the copy of the report of the enquiry officer was not supplied to him before the order of dismissal was passed against h-;m ; that his reply against the charge-sheet was not considered by the disciplinary authority ; that the orders of Disciplinary Authority and the appellate authority are non- speeding orders hence bad in law.
(3.) THE suit was resisted by the respondent denying the above allega tions. It was pleaded that the embezzlement of more than rupees two lacs by the appellant was detected, between the period 13-3- 1978 to 24-6-1984. Departmental proceeding was conducted. Sri A. P. Arora was appointed enquiry officer by the Disciplinary Authority. THE appellant did not appear before the enquiry officer and did not participate in the enquiry on any date despite several opportunities were given to him. THE enquiry was, there fore, concluded ex parte and on the basis of the enquiry report the order of dismissal was passed. THE appellant himself made confession that he had fraudulently withdrawn a sum of Rs. 1,30,000 by debiting different P and L Accounts such as interest on M. M. D. C. etc. and deposited Rs. 1,30,000 in the Bank towards part of the adjustment of the embezzled amount withdrawn by him by making fraudulent entries and the appellant had further assured the bank in the same letter that if any other entry comes to light and the amount is found to have been unauthorisedly withdrawn by him, he will make good the loss caused to deposited a sum of Rs. 1,30,000 in the bank, hence dismissal order is perfectly valid. The trial Court decreed the suit, but the appellate court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court hence this second appeal.;