- (1.) PANKAJ Mithal, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 6-6-2003 (Annexure 20 to the writ petition) dismissing him from service, the appellate order dated 17-11-2003 (Annexure 24 to the writ petition) and the order dated 15/17-3-2004 rejecting his review application (Annexure 29 to the writ petition ).
(2.) WE have heard the petitioner in person at considerable length and Sri R. N. Kesari, learned Counsel for the respondent Punjab and Sind Bank. The petitioner was initially appointed as clerk in the Punjab and Sind Bank. After promotion, at the relevant time he was working as the Branch Manager. A departmental inquiry was instituted against him and one Sri Autar Singh Narang, Chief Manager was appointed as Inquiry Officer. The petitioner was issued a charge-sheet on 30-10-2000 containing five charges to the effect that he had sanctioned loans against the non-existent FDR's to the tune of Rs. 16. 48 lacs to fictitious persons; he left the Branch on 9th March, 1999 without any authorization and handing-over the charge and as such absconded from service; he stood guarantor to the loan sanctioned to M/s. Mark Tube, Gurgaon and has made no sincere efforts to recover the said loan amount; and guaranteed loan taken by his wife from Bank of India in the name of M/s. Tarun Paper Products without obtaining permission from the competent authority. The Inquiry Officer submitted his report on 22-10-2002 holding all the five charges to be proved against the petitioner, which has been annexed as Annexure 18 to the writ petition. On the basis of the above inquiry report comments of the petitioner were invited, who submitted his reply vide order letter dated 27-2-2002. Thereafter the Disciplinary Authority on 6-6-2003 passed the order of dismissal of the petitioner and for recovery of the loss caused to the Bank from the dues payable to the petitioner. The petitioner's departmental appeal against the aforesaid dismissal order was dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 17-11-2003 and the subsequent review thereof was also dismissed vide order dated 15/17- 3-2004.
(3.) HAVING heard the parties and having perused the record, we find that the inquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Officer is too sketchy and it does not contain any reasons in support of the finding holding the charges to be proved against the petitioner. The Inquiry Officer only states that certain documents in support of each of the charges were presented and that the submissions of the petitioner in reply were not tenable and, therefore, the charges stand proved. The documents produced were neither detailed nor their nature has been explained. In the inquiry report there is no discussion much less any analysis of the evidence presented and the manner in which it proved the charges against the petitioner. Thus, it is not clear from the inquiry report as to on what basis the charges were found proved. No specific finding on the basis of the evidence adduced has been recorded to establish the guilt of the petitioner on any of the five charges e. g. in respect of the first charge there is no finding that the FDR's against which loans were sanctioned by the petitioner were not available with the Bank or if available the said FDR's stood expired, matured or revoked and as such were non-existent or the persons to whom loans were granted were not genuine persons and persons with that names and particulars does not exists. The recording of reasons by an administrative authority serves a salutary purpose of excluding arbitrariness and to promote fairness in the process of decision making. Therefore, in the expending horizon of the principles of natural justice, the requirement to record reasons unless dispensed with specifically by the statutes has also been regarded as one of the limbs of the principles of natural justice. In view of the above, we are of the view that the inquiry report, which is the foundation for dismissing the petitioner from service is perverse and stand completely vitiated under law. The inquiry report is non-speaking in nature and the conclusion recorded therein is unsupported by any reasoning whatsoever. Such an inquiry report which is unsupported by reasons is as bad as non-supply of the inquiry report to the delinquent employee and it certainly deprives him from making an effective representation before the Disciplinary Authority.;