U.K.DHAON, NARAYAN SHUKLA, JJ. - (1.) HEARD Sri U. K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P. K. Khare, learned counsel for the opposite parties.
(2.) THE petitioner being aggrieved by the order of dismissal from service dated 29.5.1981 and the order dated 20.10.1981, passed by the Appellate Authority by which the appeal preferred by the petitioner against the dismissal order has been dismissed has filed the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The brief facts of the case are that while the petitioner was working in the Zonal Office, Union Bank of India as an officer Grade-II, he was served with an order of suspension dated 29.8.1978. A charge-sheet dated 13.2.1979 containing four articles of charges alongwith memorandum of allegations dated 13.2.1979 was served upon the petitioner. Sri K. K. Dhawan the then Superintendent (Enquiries) was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. The management submitted a list of 23 witnesses. Out of 23 witnesses Sri Ashfaq Hussain and Sri Jai Chand Jaiswal were not examined by the Department. The management also filed oral as well as documentary evidence before the Enquiry Officer. The petitioner in his defence examined four witnesses besides his own statement. The Enquiry Officer after conducting the enquiry submitted the enquiry report dated 20.4.1981. The disciplinary authority thereafter passed the impugned dismissal order dated 29.5.1981 against the petitioner.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned dismissal order dated 29.5.1981 is no order in the eyes of law as the disciplinary authority in his order has mentioned that on going through the proceedings of the enquiry and the report of the enquiring' authority and all other connected papers, I concur with the findings of the enquiring authority that the charges levelled against Sri Sahai have been proved. He further submitted that the impugned dismissal order is non-speaking, non-reasoned and cryptic in nature. He further submitted that the disciplinary authority in a most arbitrary and illegal manner without considering the reply and evidence adduced by the petitioner in defence has passed the impugned dismissal order. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decisions of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. K. S. Gandhi and others, 1991 (2) SCC 716 and M. J. Sivani and others v. State of Karnataka and others, AIR 1995 SC 1770. He further submitted that the disciplinary authority has failed to act in accordance with the regulations and rules and the impugned dismissal order was passed in violation of principles of natural justice. He further submitted that the delinquent employee is entitled for an opportunity against the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer in the enquiry report and in the instant case the order of dismissal has been passed without affording any opportunity to make representation against the enquiry report.;