- (1.) IN.the.writ.petition,.counter-affidavit.was.filed.by.the.appel.lant..The.Hon'ble.Single.Judge.after.considering.the.material.on.record.and.after.hearing.the.learned.Counsel.for.the.parties.allowed.the.writ.petition.preferred.by.the.respondent.and.quashed.the.removal.order.dated.18..1..1988.and.the.appellate.order.dated.24..3..1990.
(2.) ..Sri.Sudeep.Seth,.learned.Counsel.for.the.appellants.submits.that.for.ir.regularities.comm.tted.by.the.espondent.a.cha.ge.sheet.dated.8..6..1985.was.issued.to.him.but.no.reply.to.the.charge-sheet.was.submitted.by.the.respondent.and.the.disciplinary.authority.after.considering.the.inquiry.report.submitted.by.the.Enquiry.Officer.passed.the.removal.order.against.the.respondent.against.which.an.appeal.was.preferred.by.the.respondent.which.was.dismissed.by.the.order.dated.24..3..1990.and.the.Hon'ble.Single.Judge.in.a.most.arbitrary.end.illegal.manner.has.quashed.the.impugned.orders.assailed.in.the.writ.petition..The.learned.Counsel.for.the.appellants.has.relied.upon.the.decisions.of.the.Hon'ble.Supreme.Court.in.the.cases.of.U..P..S..R..T..C..and.others.v..Har.Narain.Singh.and.others,..(1998).9.S..C..C..220 and.T..N..C..S..Corpn..Ltd..and.others.v..K..Meerabai,..(2006).2.S..C..C..255..He.further.submits.that.no.prejudice.was.caused.to.the.respondent.by.non.perusal.of.records.as.sought.by.him.vide.letters.dated.16..7..1985,.7..3..1986.and.14..3..1986.as.an.order.was.passed.by.the.Inquiry.Officer.on.14..3..1986.to.permit.the.respondent.to.inspect.the.documents.and.submit.his.defence..He.further.submits.that.Hon'ble.the.Single.Judge.while.passing.the.impugned.judg.ment.and.order.failed.to.consider.that.the.respondent.had.produced.the.defence.documents.and.examined.himself.and.Sri.Y..S..Kashyap.as.the.defence.witness.and.as.such.it.cannot.be.said.that.reasonable.opportunity.of.defence.was.not.provided.to.the.respondent.by.the.appellants.and.the.impugned.removal.order.was.passed.in.violation.of.the.principles.of.natural.justice..Learned.Counsel.for.the.appellants.has.relied.upon.the.decisions.in.the.cases.of.Syed.Rahimuddin.v..Director.General,.CSIR.and.others,..(2001).9.S..C..C..575;.Secretary.to.Govern.ment.and.others.v..A..C..J..Britto,..(1997).3.S..C..C..387;.State.of.U..P..and.others.v..Ramesh.Chandra.Mangalik,..(2002).3.S..C..C..443.and.Syndicate.Bank.and.others.v..Venkatesh.Gururao.Kurati,..(2006).3.S..C..C..150..He.further.submits.that.the.ground.regarding.non-inspection.of.documents.was.not.raised.by.the.respondent.in.his.appeal.and.it.was.raised.for.the.first.time.in.the.writ.petition.and.this.aspect.of.the.matter.was.not.considered.by.Hon'ble.the.Single.Judge.while.passing.the.impugned.judgment.and.order..In.support.of.his.submission,.the.learned.Counsel.for.the.appellants.has.relied.upon.the.decisions.in.the.cases.of.High.Court.of.Judicature.at.Bombay.through.its.Registrar.v..Shashikant.S..Patil.and.another,..(2000).1.S..C..C..416;.State.of.Haruana.and.another.v..Ratan.Singh,.A..I..R..1977.S..C..1512;.Deokinandan.Sharma.v..Union.of.India.and.others,..(2001).5.S..C..C..340;.State.Bank.of.India,.Bhopal.v..S..S..Koshal,.1994.Supp..(2).S..C..C..468.and.State.Bank.of.Bikaner.and.Jaipur.and.others.v..Prabhu.Daual.Grover,..(1995).6.S..C..C..279..He.further.submits.that.Hon'ble.the.Single.Judge.has.passed.the.impugned.judgment.and.order.giving.all.consequential.benefits.with.back.wages.in.an.arbitrary.and.mechanical.manner,.when.admittedly,.the.respondent.has.not.placed.any.document.to.prove.that.he.was.not.gainfully.employed..Learned.Coun.sel.for.the.appellant.has.relied.upon.the.decisions.of.the.Hon'ble.Supreme.Court.in.the.cases.of.State.of.Punjab.and.others.v..Dr..Harbhaian.Singh.Greasy,..(1996).9.S..C..C..322,.Kendriya.Vidyalaya.Sangathan.and.another.v..S..C..Sharma,..(2005).2.S..C..C..page.363.and.U..P..State.Brassware.Corpn..Ltd..and.another.v..Udau.Narain.Pandeu,..(2006).1.S..C..C..page.479..He.further.submits.that.the.respon.dent.who.was.an.officer.of.the.Bank.had.been.negligent.in.discharging.his.duty.and.after.the.departmental.inquiry.the.punishment.of.removal.from.service.was.awarded.to.the.respondent.and.Hon'ble.the.Single.Judge.failed.to.consider.and.appreciate.that.the.recommendation.of.the.punishing.authority.with.respect.to.the.appeal.of.the.respondent.was.not.binding.upon.the.appellate.authority.and.the.appellate.authority.decided.the.appeal.in.an.independent.and.impartial.manner..Learned.Counsel.for.the.appellant.has.relied.upon.the.decisions.of.the.Hon'ble.Supreme.Court.in.the.cases.of.State.Bank.of.India.and.others.v..T..J..Paul,..(1999).4.S..C..C..759;.Tara.Chand.Vyas.v..Chairman.and.Disciplinary.Authority.and.others,..(1907-H-S..C..C..565.and.Chairman.and.Managing.Director,.United.Commercial.Bank.and.others.v..PC..Kakkar,..(2003).4.S..C..C..364. ..Sri.Anupam.Mehrotra,.learned.Counsel.for.the.respondent.submits.that.Hon'ble.the.Single.Judge.has.passed.the.impugned.judgment.and.order.after.considering.the.entire.material.on.record.and.after.hearing.both.the.parties.at.length.and.there.is.no.illegality.or.infirmity.in.the.impugned.judgment.and order..He.further.submits.that.the.respondent.was.not.allowed.to.inspect.the.documents.prior.to.inquiry,.although,.the.request.was.made.soon.after.the.charge-sheet.was.served.on.9..7..1985..He.further.submits.that.during.the.course.of.inquiry.the.Bank.refused.to.give.documents.on.the.ground.that.they.are.untraceable.and.as.such.the.impugned.order.of.removal.as.well.as.the.order.passed.on.the.appeal.were.in.violation.of.principles.of.natural.justice..He.further.submits.that.the.respondent.always.participated.in.the.inquiry.and.failure.to.allow.defence.witnesses.to.appear.and.refusal.to.adjourn.inquiry.to.enable.defence.representative.to.appear.has.violated.the.principles.of.natural.justice. ..Learned.Counsel.for.the.respondent.has.relied.upon.the.decisions.of.Hon'ble.the.Supreme.Court.in.the.cases.of.Kashinath.Dikshita.v..Union.of.India.and.others,.A..I..R..1986.S..C..2118;.Committee.of.Management,.Kisan.Degree.College.v..Shambhu.Saran.Pandey.and.others,..(1995).1.S..C..C..404;.State.of.U..P..and.another.v..C..S..Sharma,.A..I..R..1968.S..C..158;.K..N..Gupta.S/o..Behari.Lal.v..Union.of.India.through.Secretary.Railway.Board.and.another,.A..I..R..1968.Del.85.
(3.) ..He.further.submits.that.the.respondent.was.neither.heard.by.the.disciplin.ary.authority.nor.by.the.appellate.authority.and.no.show.cause.notice.was.given.to.the.respondent.as.admitted.by.the.appellants.and.as.such.the.impugned.order.of.removal.and.order.passed.by.the.appellate.authority.have.rightly.been.quashed.by.Hon'ble.the.Single.Judge.and.there.is.no.illegality.in.the.impugned.judgment.and.order..He.has.relied.upon.the.decisions.of.the.Hon'ble.the.Supreme.Court.in.the.cases.of.Yoginath.D..Bade.v..State.of.Maharashtra.and.another,..(1999).7.S..C..C..739.and.Associated.Cement.Companies.Ltd..v..P..N..Sharma.and.another,.A..I..R..1965.S..C..1595..(V.52.C.273.). ..He.further.submits.that.relevant.factors.having.bearing.on.quantum.of.pun.ishment.were.not.considered.by.the.Bank.and.admittedly.the.Bank.suffered.no.loss.and.the.order.of.removal.of.respondent.was.unjust,.illegal.which.was.rightly.quashed.by.the.Hon'ble.Single.Judge..Learned.Counsel.for.the.respondent.has.relied.upon.the.decision.of.the.Hon'ble.Supreme.Court.in.the.case.of.Kashinath.Gupta.v..Enquiry.Officer..(R..K..Rai).Allahabad.Bank.and.others,.A..I..R..2003.S..C..1377.;