- (1.) U. K. Dhaon and Devi Prasad Singh, JJ. Heard Sri B. K. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sheelendra Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties.
(2.) THE petitioner has filed the instant writ petition against the order dated 25. 11. 1988 by which the petitioner has been dismissed from services. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was an employee of Hindustan Commercial Bank which was subsequently merged with Punjab National Bank. Before the merger, on account of the alleged irregularity committed by the petitioner he was placed under suspension. Thereafter a charge-sheet dated 3. 1. 1986 was issued to the petitioner by Hindustan Commercial Bank and on 24. 7. 1986 a supplementary charge-sheet was also issued to the petitioner by Hindustan Commercial Bank. After merger of the Hindustan Commercial Bank with the Punjab National Bank a charge-sheet dated 26. 12. 1987 was served upon the petitioner. The petitioner submitted reply to the charge-sheets and the supplementary charge-sheet and thereafter the Enquiry Officer against the charge-sheet dated 3. 1. 1986 and supplementary charge-sheet dated 24. 7. 1986 submitted the enquiry report on 20. 10. 1988. The Enquiry Officer also submitted enquiry report against the charge-sheet dated 26. 12. 1987 on 12. 10. 1988. The disciplinary authority after considering the enquiry reports submitted by the Enquiry Officer passed the impugned dismissal order dated 25. 11. 1988. The petitioner being aggrieved by the dismissal order filed a statutory appeal before the appellate authority. The said appeal was also dismissed" by the appellate authority by the order dated 31. 3. 1989. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the charge-sheet dated 3. 1. 1986 and supplementary charge-sheet dated 24. 7. 1986 were issued to the petitioner by Hindustan Commercial Bank for minor penalties as provided under Regulation 5 of the disciplinary rules governing the services of officers in the Hindustan Commercial Bank Limited. He further submits that the charge-sheet dated 26. 12. 1987 issued by Punjab National Bank to the petitioner was for major penalty and the Enquiry Officer in his report dated 12. 10. 1988 has exonerated the petitioner, but even then the disciplinary authority has imposed major penalty upon the petitioner by passing the impugned dismissal order. He further submits that before passing the dismissal order no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner and the impugned dismissal order is in violation of the principles of natural justice. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decisions in the cases of K. I. Shephered v. Union of India and others, (1987) 4 SCC 431; Punjab National Bank v. Kurt/bihari Mishra, AIR 1998 SC 2713; State Bank of India v. K. P. Narayanan Kutty, AIR 2003 SC 1100 : State Bank of India v. Arvind Kumar Shufcla, AIR 2001 SC 2398; Yoginath D. Bagdey v. State of Maharashtra and another, (1997) 7 SCC 739; Ranjit Singh v. Union of India, 2006 (4) SCC 153 : 2006 (5) AWC 5274 (SC); Lav Nigam v. Chairman and M. D. I. T. I. Ltd. and another, 2006 (9) SCC 440 and Commissioner of Karnataka Housing Board v. C. Muddaiah, 2007 (7) SCC 689 : 2007 (4) AWC 4028 (SC ).
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the opposite parties submits that there is no illegality in the impugned dismissal order passed by the disciplinary authority which is based on the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer. He further submits that the disciplinary authority has passed the impugned order of dismissal by interpreting the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer and there is no deviation in the conclusion arrived at by the Enquiry Officer or the disciplinary authority. He further submits that there was no need to give any opportunity to the petitioner by the disciplinary authority before passing the impugned dismissal order as there is no provision under the Regulations of the Bank. He further submits that the effect of the dismissal order was also considered by the appellate authority and the appellate authority also on the basis of the material on record has arrived at a conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief and the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority is just. LEARNED counsel for the opposite parties has relied upon the decisions of Hon'ble the Supreme Court P. D. Agarwal v. State Bank of India and others, (2006) 8 SCC 776; State of Punjab v. Normal Singh, (2007) 8 SCC 108 and Chairman and Managing Director and others v. P. C. Kakkar, (2003) 4 SCC 364 and on the strength of the judgments passed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that the writ petition is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed. Learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that the penalty order is based on the two enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer and it is a partly proved case and as such there was no need for issuing any show cause notice to the petitioner by the disciplinary authority.;